Post: #76

(06-28-2014 03:43 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 02:32 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 10:35 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  That Germany lost WW1 is almost the greatest tragedy of all.

Why is that a tragedy? Maybe I misread the point you are trying to make.

Because it would have led to the natural German dominance of Europe we see today, without fascism, WW II and the Holocaust. Plus maybe no breakup of the tolerant Ottoman Empire, from which many problems continue today.

The thesis of Niall Ferguson's The Pity of War, which argued that Britain should have stayed out of WW I. It makes a lot of sense.

Lol, there is a reason why German Empire collapsed and Britain ruled the world to begin with:

German politics were inferior. While economically and industrially mighty at home, German foreign policy did not differ much from 13th century Teutonic conquests of conquer, subdue and exploit. German state was not destroyed once, but twice, thanks to it's extremely backward imperial policies orchestrated by Prussian militarist class.

On the other hand, British Imperialism was much more refined. Britain always maintained an image of peaceful seafaring and commercial nation whose interference abroad was not fueled by nationalism and militarism but by "wider interests" of economic prosperity, free trade, global economy, order and progress etc etc.

Compared to that, German policy was that typical "I'll take your capital and put my flag on your presidential palace" type of medieval expansion.

Collapse of Ottoman Empire also brought positive change to Turkey itself - transformation from an Islamist Sultanate, to a Secular national Republic. Simply, persistence of multi-national Empires was impossible, hence your attitudes are quite reactionary in terms of historical progress of societies.

Post: #77

I've just started reading Ernst Junger's war memoir "Storm of Steel".

It's every bit as impressive as I've been told. Highly recommended.

Post: #78

World War I, the destruction of all the last standing monarchies... so sad.

And to replace them with miserable socialist democracies...a tragedy.

Post: #79

Funny you say that, cause retirement for example was first invented in Imperial Germany, under Bismarck.

Post: #80

I don't think UK joining WW1 was the gamer changer. Germany and their allies would have easy man-handled UK.

It was US that joined WW1 when seeing the Germans and their allies winning that changed the outcome of WW1.

The result of axis powers winning would be hegemony between Germany and Ottoman Empire. All oil fields in mid-east would be under axis control and probably Eurasia would be dominated by the axis powers.

Post: #81

(06-28-2014 05:37 PM)Orion Wrote:  there is a reason why German Empire collapsed and Britain ruled the world to begin with: German politics were inferior. While economically and industrially mighty at home, German foreign policy did not differ much from 13th century Teutonic conquests of conquer, subdue and exploit. German state was not destroyed once, but twice, thanks to it's extremely backward imperial policies orchestrated by Prussian militarist class.

That is a huge overstatement...

The German empire collapsed simply because of the embargo. The Royal Navy ruled the seas, and the embargo ensured that Germany had food shortages, fuel shortages, iron shortages, etc. A large army consumes an enormous amount of food, and you need lots of coal to smelt iron ore, etc.

In fact, during much of WWI, Ukraine was the breadbasket of the German and Austro-Hungarian empires. Germany tried to "steal" Ukraine from the Russian empire during WWI because it needed food and coal. Britain had the support of the U.S., so it could feed itself.

In fact, if you read Ernst Jünger's "Storm of Steel", you will arrive at the conclusion that the German soldiers were starving during most of WWI. They survived on bread, cabbage soup, and turnips. When they raided the English trenches and found the English food cache, they would be shocked to learn how well-fed the English soldiers were, and how varied and nutritious their diet was.

Moreover, although it is easy to dismiss Prussian militarism, anyone who goes to the region that used to be Prussia will understand how its militarism came into existence. It's flat over there. Really flat. And you had Swedes and Danes to the North, Austrians to the South (in Silesia), Poles and Russians to the East. And the French were not too far to the West. Flat land is very hard to defend, and after centuries of natural selection, only warrior cultures will survive.

It's easy for the English to claim superior organization when the English Channel is an amazing buffer zone, separating England from the Great European Plain (colored gray in the map below):



This map also explains why Russian soldiers are in Transnistria. Geography is destiny.

Post: #82

(06-29-2014 09:03 AM)turuk Wrote:  I don't think UK joining WW1 was the gamer changer. Germany and their allies would have easy man-handled UK.

It was US that joined WW1 when seeing the Germans and their allies winning that changed the outcome of WW1.

The result of axis powers winning would be hegemony between Germany and Ottoman Empire. All oil fields in mid-east would be under axis control and probably Eurasia would be dominated by the axis powers.

UK blockaded continental Germany and Austria, thus starving them out of war. UK was simply master of the seas, and there is nothing that Central powers could have done. Future of the war would belong to naval powers (US, Japan).

(06-29-2014 09:27 AM)Icarus Wrote:  That is a huge overstatement...

The German empire collapsed simply because of the embargo. The Royal Navy ruled the seas, and the embargo ensured that Germany had food shortages, fuel shortages, iron shortages, etc. A large army consumes an enormous amount of food, and you need lots of coal to smelt iron ore, etc.

In fact, during much of WWI, Ukraine was the breadbasket of the German and Austro-Hungarian empires. Germany tried to "steal" Ukraine from the Russian empire during WWI because it needed food and coal. Britain had the support of the U.S., so it could feed itself.

In fact, if you read Ernst Jünger's "Storm of Steel", you will arrive at the conclusion that the German soldiers were starving during most of WWI. They survived on bread, cabbage soup, and turnips. When they raided the English trenches and found the English food cache, they would be shocked to learn how well-fed the English soldiers were, and how varied and nutritious their diet was.

Moreover, although it is easy to dismiss Prussian militarism, anyone who goes to the region that used to be Prussia will understand how it came into existence. It's flat over there. Really flat. And you had Swedes and Danes to the North, Austrians to the South (in Silesia), Poles and Russians to the East. And the French were not too far in the West. Flat land is very hard to defend, and after centuries of natural selection, only warrior cultures will survive.

It's easy for the English to claim superior organization when the English Channel is an amazing buffer zone, separating England from the Great European Plain (colored gray in the map below):



This map also explains why Russian soldiers are in Transnistria. Geography is destiny.

No, German Empire collapsed because it went to war in the first place. They were overconfident, their goals were crude. However, German loss in WWI was not as foolish as their repeat of WWI catastrophe during Hitler.

If there was a sane strategist in Germany, and not a jingoist expansionist militarist class, they would have known why Germany is not colonial power, but UK and France. The reason is - NAVY. Germany was and is technically a land-locked country, and as such their power-projecting capabilities were doomed since Middle Ages for good. Germany always wanted to become Global power but it never had capabilities to do so. German political masterminds always thought that their industrial development, and high intellectual capabilities were sufficient to project them from their status of minor landlocked nation. But it isn't. God simply did not give them necessary components.

Same with USA. There is a very good reason why US is a leading power, apart from strong economy - US has the best strategic position on earth. Buffered by two vast oceans on each side, while at the same time holding all key islands and archipelagos in worlds most important body of water - Pacific. As long as ships remain world's most important power projecting devices, USA will remain leading power.

Post: #83

(06-29-2014 09:03 AM)turuk Wrote:  I don't think UK joining WW1 was the gamer changer. Germany and their allies would have easy man-handled UK.

It was US that joined WW1 when seeing the Germans and their allies winning that changed the outcome of WW1.

This is what we hear about WWII as well and in both cases it's little more than Western chest beating. The allies took 10M losses on the eastern front as opposed to 7M on the western.

There was no real game changer in WWI it was just pure attrition where the Allies could afford a higher number of losses before their order of battle threatened to collapse.

Post: #84

Elsewhere I've read that it was ultimately American bankers that pushed President Wilson into sending Americans to fight in WW1. France and Britain owed huge debts to American banks and there would be no chance of recovering these loans if Germany was victorious. President Wilson had previously campaigned on the promise not to send American boys to fight in a European war.

Is anyone else familiar with this?

Of course, there was also German sabotage on the US eastern seaboard, the sinking of the Lusitania, and most damning, the Zimmerman Telegram. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram

Maybe I missed it the previous posts, but no one mentioned the effect of the Spanish Influenza on WW1.

"Many researchers have suggested that the conditions of the war significantly aided the spread of the disease. And others have argued that the course of the war (and subsequent peace treaty) was influenced by the pandemic."

http://www.firstworldwar.com/atoz/influenza.htm

Post: #85

(06-29-2014 09:38 AM)Orion Wrote:  No, German Empire collapsed because it went to war in the first place. They were overconfident, their goals were crude. (...) If there was a sane strategist in Germany, and not a jingoist expansionist militarist class, they would have known why Germany is not colonial power, but UK and France. The reason is - NAVY. Germany was and is technically a land-locked country, and as such their power-projecting capabilities were doomed since Middle Ages for good.

I certainly agree that Germany paid a high price for its overconfidence and folly.

However, Germany did indeed have colonies in Africa, namely in Namibia, Cameroon, and what is now Burundi, Rwanda, and Tanzania. It is true that Germany's colonial empire was quite small when compared to the British and French colonial empires, but it did exist. However, if you lack a powerful navy, then you are a de facto landlocked country, as you mentioned.

Post: #86

As the 100th anniversary of the war approaches, there will be some big events going on here and there. I live near Kansas City, which has the biggest WWI memorial in the US. Not only is it the biggest in the US, I think it is one of the biggest in the world.

It's huge, and is comprised of both a memorial as well as an extensive museum. When it was dedicated in the 1920s, several US presidents showed up, as well as members of the General Staffs of the Allied Powers.

Will post photos....

Post: #87

(06-29-2014 11:13 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

(06-29-2014 09:03 AM)turuk Wrote:  I don't think UK joining WW1 was the gamer changer. Germany and their allies would have easy man-handled UK.

It was US that joined WW1 when seeing the Germans and their allies winning that changed the outcome of WW1.

This is what we hear about WWII as well and in both cases it's little more than Western chest beating. The allies took 10M losses on the eastern front as opposed to 7M on the western.

There was no real game changer in WWI it was just pure attrition where the Allies could afford a higher number of losses before their order of battle threatened to collapse.

But isn't the ability to outlast your opponent a key quality/strength? Back in the day when towns were under siege, didn't many surrender because they ran out of supplies, etc.?

My point is you can't blame countries for having more resources. War isn't about fairness which would also imply respect. If they had respect for one another, they would never have started a fight/battle/war in the first place.

Sort of sounds like when a guy has money and gets girls and guys say well it is because he has money. Isn't that one of his qualities? Shouldn't he use it to win?

QC, I have been to that WWI memorial. It was pretty cool and it was a very large dedication. I can only imagine how affluent places like KC were in the past when much trade/cattle etc went through there. Not saying KC isn't important now, but the coasts have seem to taken over in "prestige."

Post: #88

The German system put in place by Bismarck was pretty good.

Kaiser Wilhelm was a bit of a dick, but Germany had elections, a parliament and political parties. It would have been likely that Wilhelm's assertion of near-absolute rule would have been temporary.

If Germany won, would they have swallowed up France and Belgium? Maybe, but maybe they would have just taken some colonies in Africa off of them.

Maybe a war between the German Empire and Soviet Russia would have happened, then again maybe there would have been no Soviet Russia if the UK did not enter the war. Maybe there would have been a quick truce, maybe Germany would have taken Poland and the Ukraine.

There would have been a very powerful Germany, but with a constitutional monarchy. Probably better than WW II. Hitler would have been happier in 1920, maybe he would have got laid and his art would have been better.

With regard to the Ottoman Empire, hard to say what would have happened. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was a general in the army and was already connected with the military officers known as the "young Turks," although cautiously. Maybe only the breakup of the empire would have pushed him to leadership, but it's possible that he and others, even Enver Pasha, would have pushed for a new and liberalized system in the wake of a Central Powers victory or an equal truce.

Post: #89

So on Fareed Zakaria had a discussion called: Why 2014 Might Feel Like 1914 All Over Again.

One of the authors had an article, I posted below. The author is a Retired CIA Deputy Director, Senior Fellow at Philip Merrill Center for Strategic Studies. For background.

I think it was slightly fluffy piece, but I never thought about trying to compare today to a 100 years ago, so I appreciated the effort.

Quote:How 2014 Is Strikingly Similar to 1914
June 23, 2014. By John McLaughlin

This week rings a historical bell. On June 28, it will be exactly 100 years since one man in the Balkans changed the world forever — with two shots from a pistol in the dusty provincial town of Sarajevo. Those shots, fired by Serbian nationalist Gavrilo Princip, killed Austria’s Archduke Franz Ferdinand and set off the diplomatic donnybrook that led to four years of world war (1914–1918). In many ways, we are still living in the rubble of that war.

There are some obvious parallels, a century later, between 1914 and 2014. Some have speculated about whether we are at one of those times Mark Twain referred to when he famously said: “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme.”

Which ought to make us all pretty nervous. What looks similar in 2014 and 1914?

The Tinderbox: In 1914, one region of the world, the Balkans, was a tinderbox. But how little we learn. Today, that volatile region is the Middle East, where borders date from the casual division of that first war’s spoils. When the Ottoman Empire drew its last gasp during the war, the British and French took out their rulers and drew lines that either created or partially shaped what we today call Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon among others. Over the century, the straight lines they drew in an ethnically convoluted region exacerbated the sectarian and nationalist tensions that today threaten to explode into region-wide war.

Geopolitical Punches: In 1914, the world’s dominant player, Great Britain, was feeling the sharp elbows of an aggressive new Germany, united only a few decades earlier but already surpassing Britain in steel production by 1900. Today, the United States feels the heat from a surging China, set to overtake the U.S. as the world’s largest economy any year now. And China today, like Germany back then, is not yet constrained by any sort of regional security framework.

Globalization: It’s old news: In 1914, nations deceived themselves into believing war was impossible because of the interdependence caused by trade and new technologies such as the telephone, telegraph, steam engine and manned flight. Sound familiar? Today, many argue that the interdependence we call “globalization” — or burgeoning trade, the Internet, social media, international mobility — ensures that nations will resist the folly of major wars.

A Technological Boom: In 1914, countries heading to war did not anticipate that some new technologies — such as dramatically more efficient machine guns and aerial observation — would prolong a war in which a thousand Englishmen and a thousand French died every day. Similarly, today we possess new weapons, such as cyber warfare and advanced biological agents, whose potential has yet to be demonstrated. We can only imagine their destruction if and when they are deployed.
Stacks of large steel bins in port

But there’s some good news, too. The last century saw a few changes that could limit the escalation of potential conflict. Here’s how our world looks markedly different:

Wilson Didn’t Completely Fail: We now have international institutions dedicated to conflict prevention or deterrence that were not even imagined in 1914: the United Nations, NATO, the European Union and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to name just a few. But these international institutions have limited clout in some of the most dangerous trouble spots. As China and Japan circle each other over East China Sea territorial disputes, for example, no organization is standing by. The same can be said for the Middle East, where events are daily deepening the divisions between Sunni and Shia factions — and where no outsider can do much to stop it.

Collective Memory: We know the graphic horrors of full-scale war better than our 1914 forebears did. Some of these leaders truly relished the idea of war, even imagining it romantically and entering it confidently, assuming it could only go on so long. History had taught them wrong.

Colonialism Is Mostly Over: One of the drivers of war in 1914 was unbridled colonial ambition and rivalry. Old powers and rising ones hoped that defeating adversaries would allow them to seize the losers’ colonial territories in Africa, Asia and Latin America and to carve up the geographic spoils when one of the combatants — the Ottoman Empire — fully collapsed. But colonialism was completely discredited after 1945 and the end of World War II as new powers gained their independence and were recognized by the United Nations — and as the emphasis shifted to an ideological competition between the democratic perspective of the West and the Marxist thrust of the Soviet Union.

Casualty Aversion: Citizens, who presumably have less enthusiasm for war than those who send them, have a more powerful voice today through social media and expanded suffrage — only about 40 percent of British males were entitled to vote in 1914. In contrast, public opinion surveys last year highlighted for Washington that only about a third of Americans favored intervention in Syria, for example, even after Assad used chemical weapons. But while social media and the Internet can restrain governments, it can also spur nationalism, as in China, and organize conflict, as in the case of terrorists who rely heavily on these tools for recruitment and training.

The Bomb: Warfare today falls under the dark legacy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which stand as powerful reminders of what ultimately we must avoid in an age when nuclear weapons are abundantly present on three continents. And while nuclear weapons can act as a deterrent to escalation in conflict, they can also be tempting spoils for ambitious regimes. The 70-year-old technology that wreaked destruction on Japan has spread to South Asia and North Korea and is dangerously close to maturing in Iran. The greater the number of nuclear weapons, the greater the chances for miscalculation or accidental launch that could start a war defying all previous experience.

What 1914 teaches us is the power of a small event’s reverberations. Our world is different, but it rhymes — and so do ripple effects. Even today, our geopolitics can reverberate as much as Gavrilo Princip’s shots did back then.

Such an echo, of course, is exactly what happened when a young Tunisian fruit vendor named Mohamad Bouazizi set himself and the Arab world on fire, igniting the Arab Spring across North Africa, the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. And much like the analysts of 1914 we still don’t know how or when that will end.

http://www.ozy.com/c-notes/the-spy-who-t...57.article

Post: #90

(06-29-2014 12:18 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  

(06-29-2014 11:13 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

(06-29-2014 09:03 AM)turuk Wrote:  I don't think UK joining WW1 was the gamer changer. Germany and their allies would have easy man-handled UK.

It was US that joined WW1 when seeing the Germans and their allies winning that changed the outcome of WW1.

This is what we hear about WWII as well and in both cases it's little more than Western chest beating. The allies took 10M losses on the eastern front as opposed to 7M on the western.

There was no real game changer in WWI it was just pure attrition where the Allies could afford a higher number of losses before their order of battle threatened to collapse.

But isn't the ability to outlast your opponent a key quality/strength? Back in the day when towns were under siege, didn't many surrender because they ran out of supplies, etc.?

My point is you can't blame countries for having more resources. War isn't about fairness which would also imply respect. If they had respect for one another, they would never have started a fight/battle/war in the first place.

I don't disagree but I don't see how it's relevant to me showing how the US entry was a "game changer".

Post: #91

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

great podcast, currently rolling out WWI, 3hours plus in length

Post: #92

Wars between monarchies were typically pissing contests that would usually end with the winning side gaining some new territory but never the outright subjugation of the losing side.

WWI would have ended on its own eventually, most likely with Germany taking over some of France and both sides would have gone on with their lives. The US is a democracy though and their entry was a game changer. They didnt merely stop the fighting. Their entry led to the dissolution of the German and Austrian monarchies. Woodrow Wilson wanted to make the world safe for democracy and the way to do that was to overthrow the monarchs and replace them with democracies. US foreign policy since the birth of the progressive movement has been all out war and establishing new governments that resemble western democracies. If you look at every war the US has fought in since WWI, that has been the case. We go in and attempt to secure & establish a western-style democracy. Be it that we fought the monarchs, the fascists, the Communists or the Islamists now, our goal has been to build secular western democracies.

I dislike US foreign policy a lot. I am a big supporter of monarchy & see democracy as communism lite.

Post: #93

Monarchy is anachronistic. Modern type of centralized authoritarian government is autocracy, since church and state had split their ways, and also, since inheritance of throne is a silly thing.

Post: #94

(06-30-2014 05:32 AM)Orion Wrote:  Monarchy is anachronistic.

No, it isn't. Monarchy, from the Greek monos + arkhein, i.e., "to rule alone".

One could claim that Apple under Jobs was a non-sovereign monarchy in which Steve Jobs was the king, or Kaiser. He also chose his successor. Not all monarchies are hereditary. The board of directors existed as a sort of judicial branch to monitor and police the executive's decisions. Unfortunately, this monarchy existed to make toys only. If Jobs had been chosen as the King of California, the Golden State would now be in better shape.

What is indeed anachronistic is divine right monarchy. The problem of divine right monarchy is simply that its legitimacy is derived from the idea of "divine right", which is only believable if people believe in God. When people stop believing in God, divine right monarchy loses its legitimacy and divine right monarchies are overthrown.

(06-30-2014 05:32 AM)Orion Wrote:  since church and state had split their ways

Not quite. There is indeed a lot of separation between the state and the Anglican / Catholic / Lutheran Church. However, let us look at the word "church". The church is that whose purpose is to tell people what to think. The modern church is distributed and decentralized. It's the media, schools, and universities, and to a much lesser extent, think tanks. Since the state funds universities, there's no de facto separation between state and church. Even private universities such as Harvard or Stanford get research grants from the federal government, which means that their operations are partly funded by the federal government itself.

Oh, and NPR is funded by the federal government, as well.

(06-30-2014 05:32 AM)Orion Wrote:  inheritance of throne is a silly thing.

Not totally. Not always, at least. If succession is determined by an algorithm as simple as "eldest son of the king shall inherit the throne", a lot of uncertainty is eliminated. The other sons of the king have no incentive (or less of an incentive) to go to war against their eldest brother, since the army knows the succession algorithm and knows to whom they are supposed to remain loyal. Of course, history has plenty of examples of princes and kings murdered by close relatives, but many dynasties have survived several centuries.

Post: #95

I think that so far the longest standing autocratic governments were those where leader was elected by a council of most powerful and experienced people (China, where secretary has limited term, and Iran, where Ayatollah has lifetime term).

Throne being inherited is simply a disaster waiting to happen.

Post: #96

(06-30-2014 09:11 AM)Orion Wrote:  Throne being inherited is simply a disaster waiting to happen.

Only if the heir is a sadistic sociopath, or an inbred retard. Still, the simple succession algorithm may prevent civil wars.

In any case, political systems are always idealizations. In theory, a monarch is the one who rules alone and has absolute power. In the real world, however, a monarch is not an expert on all topics on which he needs to make decisions, which means that, say, his economic advisors will likely dictate the country's economic policy. In other words, when it comes to economic policy, the advisors rule. Formal power seldom matches informal power. Which is why the terms "de facto" and "de jure" exist.

In theory, "the people" rule in a democracy. In the real world, however, the ones who tell "the people" what to think (i.e., the media) rule in a democracy. In other words, in a democracy it is not "the people" who rule, but public opinion, and public opinion is usually a function of who owns the newspapers, radio stations, and TV channels. There is a good reason why billionaires like to buy newspapers and TV channels, and it is not profit.

Post: #97

Privileged masses of democratic societies will never really have any incentive to speak against society that satisfies their rationalization hamster. Whenever a westerners speaks about it, it's always out of ideological, religious or other convictions that were formed through either research or some personal disillusionment and lack of satisfaction with his environment.

The only way that western democracies are really decaying is through demography, which is an issue that no science could solve. Hence they chose to extinguish fire through immigration, and supply of migrants is not really depleted.

Not necessarily will change of demographic structure bring end to west. Many migrants are not only willingly accepting this corporatist culture of west, but they tend to be more obedient (remember Asian worker stereotype ?), submissive (just check out how many liberals and feminists out there are of immigrant background), and are also seeing west and it's governments as defender of their newly acquired fortune, cause back home, things were not pretty. In other words, immigrants are god given blessing to the west, and particularly corporations.

We are talking about a very flexible, evolving and mutating system, that really seems to absorb shocks pretty well.

Post: #98

(06-30-2014 09:59 AM)Orion Wrote:  Privileged masses of democratic societies will never really have any incentive to speak against society that satisfies their rationalization hamster. Whenever a westerners speaks about it, it's always out of ideological, religious or other convictions that were formed through either research or some personal disillusionment and lack of satisfaction with his environment.

The only way that western democracies are really decaying is through demography, which is an issue that no science could solve. Hence they chose to extinguish fire through immigration, and supply of migrants is not really depleted.

Not necessarily will change of demographic structure bring end to west. Many migrants are not only willingly accepting this corporatist culture of west, but they tend to be more obedient (remember Asian worker stereotype ?), submissive (just check out how many liberals and feminists out there are of immigrant background), and are also seeing west and it's governments as defender of their newly acquired fortune, cause back home, things were not pretty. In other words, immigrants are god given blessing to the west, and particularly corporations.

We are talking about a very flexible, evolving and mutating system, that really seems to absorb shocks pretty well.

The main issue is that there have been no examples of Western Monarchy for the past century now. Making an assumption that a secular monarchy won't work is like saying the entire Roman Empire was a sham. A secular monarchy arising from the ruins of a Republic can and will effectively work if given proper guidance. Of course I'm not in favor of such a system, but it could work quite well.

Post: #99

(06-29-2014 12:05 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  As the 100th anniversary of the war approaches, there will be some big events going on here and there. I live near Kansas City, which has the biggest WWI memorial in the US. Not only is it the biggest in the US, I think it is one of the biggest in the world.

It's huge, and is comprised of both a memorial as well as an extensive museum. When it was dedicated in the 1920s, several US presidents showed up, as well as members of the General Staffs of the Allied Powers.

Will post photos....

This is The Shrine of Remembrance in Melbourne:











Some context:


415,000 Australians voluntarily enlisted in WW1 from a population of just 5 million. Conscription was never introduced. 60,000 were killed and 156,000 were wounded, gassed, or taken prisoner. They fought alongside the New Zealanders as part of the ANZACs (Australia and New Zealand Army Corps).


The Shrine was designed by two architects who were both World War I veterans. They chose a classical style based on the Tomb of Mausolus at Halicarnassus and the Parthenon in Athens.


The Shrine has no reference to religion whatsoever. The only human statue outside is of Sampson and his Donkey - a man who rescued wounded soldiers from the frontline on the back of his donkey with no regard for his own life - he was eventually killed by gunfire. It is fitting with the Australian tradition of celebrating iconography of common mateship above individual authority figures.


Over 300,000 attended the opening ceremony in 1921 - this was 1/3rd of Melbourne's total population at the time and the biggest turnout ever in Australian history up to this date.


The sanctuary contains the marble Stone of Remembrance, upon which is engraved the words "GREATER LOVE HATH NO MAN". Visitors must bow their heads to read the inscription sunk below the pavement.


On 11 November at 11am (Remembrance Day), a ray of sunlight shines through an aperture in the roof to light up the word "LOVE" in the inscription.


On the western wall of the Shrine it reads: "LET ALL MEN KNOW THAT THIS IS HOLY GROUND. THIS SHRINE, ESTABLISHED IN THE HEARTS OF MEN AS ON THE SOLID EARTH, COMMEMORATES A PEOPLE'S FORTITUDE AND SACRIFICE. YE THEREFORE THAT COME AFTER, GIVE REMEMBRANCE."


The Shrine also commemorates conflicts that followed: WWII, the Korean War, the Borneo campaign (1945), the Malayan Emergency, the Indonesian Confrontation in North Borneo and Sarawak, the Vietnam War and the Gulf War.


I can personally attest to its gravitas. It is very moving and sombre. Visitors their feel in awe of the ultimate sacrifice made by this generation. The Shrine has a huge emotional impact on all who visit.

Post: #100

Here is a great photo collection appearing in "The Atlantic" about the First World War. Some of these photos are truly poignant:

http://www.theatlantic.com/static/infocus/wwi/century/