Discussion:
99 years
(too old to reply)
Jérémy
2013-09-30 09:03:01 UTC
Permalink
Starting in a little less than a year, and possibly extending for the
rest of our lives, we are going to be reliving through a succession of
centenaries an epic period of history.

I've been reading a bit, hoping to stay ahead of the commentary. In case
anyone is interested, I'd like to commend a couple of recent reads to the
house:

Barbara Tuchman: The Guns of August (about the immediate prelude and
first few months of WW1)
Margaret Macmillan: Paris 1919 - Six Months That Changed the World (about
the Paris peace conference)

and a couple of old favourites:

TE Lawrence: Seven Pillars of Wisdom (about the Arab revolt, simply the
best adventure story ever written)
Vera Brittain: Testament of Youth.

Other ones I've read, not necessarily recently: Graves, Remarque, Hasek,
Sassoon, Churchill, AJP Taylor...

So... what else do you think I should read to have an enlightened
understanding of the first world war and its aftermath?
--
Jeremy
K1300GT
ogden
2013-09-30 09:12:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jérémy
Starting in a little less than a year, and possibly extending for the
rest of our lives, we are going to be reliving through a succession of
centenaries an epic period of history.
I've been reading a bit, hoping to stay ahead of the commentary.
I'm going to have to learn to write some decent filters and stop
watching tv. Learning from history is one thing, banging on the
specifics gets old, fast.
--
ogden

990SMT - bouncy orange tractor
GSXR1000 - vintage sports-tourer
Charlie
2013-09-30 09:21:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jérémy
So... what else do you think I should read to have an enlightened
understanding of the first world war and its aftermath?
For naval history, Robert K Massie: Dreadnought for the frenetic
technological lead-up to WW1, and Castles of Steel for the thing itself.
Having said that, I'm with Ogden on all this. Learn and move on.
TOG@Toil
2013-09-30 09:53:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlie
For naval history, Robert K Massie: Dreadnought for the frenetic
technological lead-up to WW1, and Castles of Steel for the thing itself.
Having said that, I'm with Ogden on all this. Learn and move on.
The sad thing is that people *don't* learn and move on. while history may not repeat itself exactly, historical situations do recur, and people with no real knowledge of history don't learn from the past.

With you on Robert Massie, by the way.
Colin Irvine
2013-09-30 10:14:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@Toil
Post by Charlie
For naval history, Robert K Massie: Dreadnought for the frenetic
technological lead-up to WW1, and Castles of Steel for the thing itself.
Having said that, I'm with Ogden on all this. Learn and move on.
The sad thing is that people *don't* learn and move on. while history may not repeat itself exactly, historical situations do recur, and people with no real knowledge of history don't learn from the past.
Or they learn the wrong thing. Here's what the MoD has been learning
recently.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/26/mod-study-sell-wars-public
--
Colin Irvine
ZZR1400 BOF#33 BONY#34 COFF#06 BHaLC#5
http://www.colinandpat.co.uk
Thomas
2013-09-30 15:52:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colin Irvine
Post by ***@Toil
The sad thing is that people *don't* learn and move on.
Or they learn the wrong thing. Here's what the MoD has been learning
recently.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/26/mod-study-sell-wars-public
heh. President Bush stopped allowing photogs to shoot pictures of
returning coffins from Iraq. One way to do it.
Hog
2013-09-30 10:41:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@Toil
Post by Charlie
For naval history, Robert K Massie: Dreadnought for the frenetic
technological lead-up to WW1, and Castles of Steel for the thing
itself. Having said that, I'm with Ogden on all this. Learn and move
on.
The sad thing is that people *don't* learn and move on. while
history may not repeat itself exactly, historical situations do
recur, and people with no real knowledge of history don't learn from
the past.
With you on Robert Massie, by the way.
Simon Schama's "History of the Jews" episode last night was *fascinating*,
with lot's of new stuff.
--
Hog

GSXR1000K4 Ducati ST4S GasGas 250 Raga
TOG@Toil
2013-09-30 11:07:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hog
Simon Schama's "History of the Jews" episode last night was *fascinating*,
with lot's of new stuff.
What fascinates me is that there is so much stuff *still* coming out about WW2.

Stuff is being declassified, but best of all, archives are being opened in Russia and the old eastern bloc, where they simply shoved all the paperwork into storage and sat on it for half a century or more.
Hog
2013-09-30 11:53:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@Toil
Post by Hog
Simon Schama's "History of the Jews" episode last night was
*fascinating*, with lot's of new stuff.
What fascinates me is that there is so much stuff *still* coming out about WW2.
Stuff is being declassified, but best of all, archives are being
opened in Russia and the old eastern bloc, where they simply shoved
all the paperwork into storage and sat on it for half a century or
more.
Isn't it though!
Everyone should have to watch that episode.

I liked the point about the huge increase of the Israeli population and
subsequent pressure on the (ex) Arab population being a consequense of
ethnic cleansing across the Arab nations. Cause and Effect, Tonto.

I've long been amused by the British lefties (more recent) opposition to
Israel, one assumes because it has strong American connections. As Schama
reminded us, socialism (indeed communism) long resonated within the jewish
community. When I were a college lad it was a very popular thing to go and
spend time on a Kibbutz. I doubt Gaza cuts it as an alternative.
--
Hog

GSXR1000K4 Ducati ST4S GasGas 250 Raga
Thomas
2013-09-30 16:01:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hog
Post by ***@Toil
Post by Hog
Simon Schama's "History of the Jews" episode last night was
*fascinating*, with lot's of new stuff.
What fascinates me is that there is so much stuff *still* coming out about WW2.
Stuff is being declassified, but best of all, archives are being
opened in Russia and the old eastern bloc, where they simply shoved
all the paperwork into storage and sat on it for half a century or
more.
Isn't it though!
Everyone should have to watch that episode.
Haven't seen it.
Post by Hog
I liked the point about the huge increase of the Israeli population and
subsequent pressure on the (ex) Arab population being a consequense of
ethnic cleansing across the Arab nations. Cause and Effect, Tonto.
Population issues. When I was there, the Arab birth rate was 14 times the
Jewish birth rate. There was a strong Israeli birth control program - for
Arabs. There was also a strong PR campaign throughout the world that if
you're Jewish, you're Israeli, and you should come home. (Although I found
closer ties between Brooklyn Jew and Catholic then between New York Jew
and Russian Jew.)
Post by Hog
I've long been amused by the British lefties (more recent) opposition to
Israel, one assumes because it has strong American connections. As Schama
reminded us, socialism (indeed communism) long resonated within the jewish
community. When I were a college lad it was a very popular thing to go
and spend time on a Kibbutz.
BTDT.
TMack
2013-09-30 22:26:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hog
Post by ***@Toil
Post by Hog
Simon Schama's "History of the Jews" episode last night was
*fascinating*, with lot's of new stuff.
What fascinates me is that there is so much stuff *still* coming out about WW2.
Stuff is being declassified, but best of all, archives are being opened
in Russia and the old eastern bloc, where they simply shoved all the
paperwork into storage and sat on it for half a century or more.
Isn't it though!
Everyone should have to watch that episode.
I liked the point about the huge increase of the Israeli population and
subsequent pressure on the (ex) Arab population being a consequense of
ethnic cleansing across the Arab nations. Cause and Effect, Tonto.
It was on TV so it must be true? A lot of very complex stuff went on.
This programme only presented Schama's version. Schama is Jewish and pro-
Israel so it's just possible that his version might not be entirely
objective.
--
Tony
'09 FJR1300, '87 TW200,
89 TW200 (awaiting registration), '07 Street Triple OMF#24
Champ
2013-09-30 22:39:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by TMack
This programme only presented Schama's version. Schama is Jewish and pro-
Israel so it's just possible that his version might not be entirely
objective.
That was pretty much my judgement from the first programme, which I
thought was pretty shit. I shan't be bothering with any of the
others.
--
Champ
neal at champ dot org dot uk
Hog
2013-10-02 10:34:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Champ
Post by TMack
This programme only presented Schama's version. Schama is Jewish
and pro- Israel so it's just possible that his version might not be
entirely objective.
That was pretty much my judgement from the first programme, which I
thought was pretty shit. I shan't be bothering with any of the
others.
Some of it was a presentation of history and some of the more recent stuff
opinion. Pretty balanced opinion from an academic brain I thought.
--
Hog

GSXR1000K4 Ducati ST4S GasGas 250 Raga
Hog
2013-10-02 10:35:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by TMack
Post by Hog
Post by ***@Toil
Post by Hog
Simon Schama's "History of the Jews" episode last night was
*fascinating*, with lot's of new stuff.
What fascinates me is that there is so much stuff *still* coming out about WW2.
Stuff is being declassified, but best of all, archives are being
opened in Russia and the old eastern bloc, where they simply shoved
all the paperwork into storage and sat on it for half a century or
more.
Isn't it though!
Everyone should have to watch that episode.
I liked the point about the huge increase of the Israeli population
and subsequent pressure on the (ex) Arab population being a
consequense of ethnic cleansing across the Arab nations. Cause and
Effect, Tonto.
It was on TV so it must be true? A lot of very complex stuff went on.
This programme only presented Schama's version. Schama is Jewish and
pro- Israel so it's just possible that his version might not be
entirely objective.
Nobody reasonable can deny the right of Israel to exist but Schama certainly
didn't come across as anti Arab or ultra Zionist, did he.
--
Hog

GSXR1000K4 Ducati ST4S GasGas 250 Raga
Champ
2013-10-02 21:47:53 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:35:52 +0100, "Hog"
Post by Hog
Nobody reasonable can deny the right of Israel to exist
In the same way that nbody reasonable can deny the case for a united
Ireland, no?
--
Champ
neal at champ dot org dot uk
Charlie
2013-09-30 11:03:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@Toil
Post by Charlie
For naval history, Robert K Massie: Dreadnought for the frenetic
technological lead-up to WW1, and Castles of Steel for the thing itself.
Having said that, I'm with Ogden on all this. Learn and move on.
The sad thing is that people *don't* learn and move on. while history may not repeat itself exactly, historical situations do recur
... "first as tragedy, second as farce"
Jérémy
2013-09-30 12:20:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlie
Post by Jérémy
So... what else do you think I should read to have an enlightened
understanding of the first world war and its aftermath?
For naval history, Robert K Massie: Dreadnought for the frenetic
technological lead-up to WW1, and Castles of Steel for the thing
itself. Having said that, I'm with Ogden on all this. Learn and move
on.
Thanks for that.

I'm sort of with you and Ogden. I get very tired of the seeming
obsession in England with WW2. But that obsession is about reinforcing a
national narrative; not only is it not really about understanding and
learning from the history, but in some cases it's very revisionist.

I'm anticipating that through the coming centenaries competing national
narratives will be promoting their own revisionist versions of what
happened, and I'd rather like to know what I think about some of the
specifics before the rows start. There's going to be a stinker of a row
with Turkey in 2015 about Armenia, for example, and the Sykes-Picot
agreement and the Balfour declaration will get picked over again.

Besides, first I'm interested in history, and second this stuff isn't
even really history, in the sense that, for example, the Middle East
with all its problems that we're living with today is the Middle East
that was created in 1919. A lot of it is still required current
political knowledge.
--
Jeremy
K1300GT
Krusty
2013-09-30 12:46:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jérémy
There's going to be a stinker
of a row with Turkey in 2015 about Armenia, for example, and the
Sykes-Picot agreement
Am I the only one who briefly wondered at that point what
Skyes-Pickavant have got to do with Turkish politics?
--
Krusty

Raptor 1000 MV 750 Senna Fantic Hiro 250
Charlie
2013-09-30 13:05:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Krusty
Post by Jérémy
There's going to be a stinker
of a row with Turkey in 2015 about Armenia, for example, and the
Sykes-Picot agreement
Am I the only one who briefly wondered at that point what
Skyes-Pickavant have got to do with Turkish politics?
ITYM Sykes-Picot.
Charlie
2013-09-30 13:08:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlie
Post by Krusty
Post by Jérémy
There's going to be a stinker
of a row with Turkey in 2015 about Armenia, for example, and the
Sykes-Picot agreement
Am I the only one who briefly wondered at that point what
Skyes-Pickavant have got to do with Turkish politics?
ITYM Sykes-Picot.
Er, durrrrrrrr!
Krusty
2013-09-30 13:20:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlie
Post by Charlie
Post by Krusty
Post by Jérémy
There's going to be a stinker
of a row with Turkey in 2015 about Armenia, for example, and the
Sykes-Picot agreement
Am I the only one who briefly wondered at that point what
Skyes-Pickavant have got to do with Turkish politics?
ITYM Sykes-Picot.
Er, durrrrrrrr!
Quite. YTC!
--
Krusty

Raptor 1000 MV 750 Senna Fantic Hiro 250
Jérémy
2013-09-30 13:39:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Krusty
Post by Jérémy
There's going to be a stinker
of a row with Turkey in 2015 about Armenia, for example, and the
Sykes-Picot agreement
Am I the only one who briefly wondered at that point what
Skyes-Pickavant have got to do with Turkish politics?
Brilliant! I thought that was a spurious french language spillchuck until I
looked it up.

Also, they were two separate examples. The Sykes-Picot agreement doesn't
have much to do with Turkish politics.
--
Jeremy
K1300GT
Grimly Curmudgeon
2013-09-30 15:27:02 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 12:46:04 +0000 (UTC), "Krusty"
Post by Krusty
Am I the only one who briefly wondered at that point what
Skyes-Pickavant have got to do with Turkish politics?
Castellated nuts, old boy.
Thomas
2013-09-30 16:04:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grimly Curmudgeon
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 12:46:04 +0000 (UTC), "Krusty"
Post by Krusty
Am I the only one who briefly wondered at that point what
Skyes-Pickavant have got to do with Turkish politics?
Castellated nuts, old boy.
<golf clap>
Charlie
2013-09-30 13:04:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jérémy
Besides, first I'm interested in history, and second this stuff isn't
even really history, in the sense that, for example, the Middle East
with all its problems that we're living with today is the Middle East
that was created in 1919. A lot of it is still required current
political knowledge.
Having learned German largely because my dad spoke it (as a second
language, that is!), I've been immune to the lazy Bad Krauts routine. I
have fun with my playful thesis that neither World War was down to the
Germans. Both of them were caused by the Austrians.

It was the intransigence of the Austro-Hungarian empire, when the Serbs
had capitulated to all but one of their humiliating Ultimatum demands,
that caused WW1. The Kaiser, although he loved tweaking the tail of the
British, foresaw how catastrophic war would be and was sending telegrams
to Vienna imploring them to be a bit flexible. He was also writing to
his cousin the Tsar, trying to broker a last-minute peace. Furthermore,
Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg and Foreign Minister Jagow were both
hell-bent on a war (before Russia was strong enough to be unbeatable)
and were censoring the news to him (cruising in the Norwegian fjords) in
their favour.

As for WW2, well, Hitler was Austrian!

There's a superb book just out - Noble Endeavours by Miranda Seymour -
which follows the shared history of Britain and German since the 1613
marriage of James l's daughter to the son of the Elector Palatine. The
brief interlude of unpleasantness from 1914 to 1945 is just a fractional
interruption of 400 years of harmony.
Thomas
2013-09-30 16:30:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jérémy
I'm sort of with you and Ogden. I get very tired of the seeming
obsession in England with WW2.
Yebbut, that's due in large part, I think, because of the closeness. =

People remember where bombs dropped in their neighborhood. I live in a =

part of the world that has NEVER seen a war up close. When I was young, =
I =

used to play in naval artillery bunkers from WWII, but they were never =

used. And the only military action ever seen here was the Battle of San =
=

Pasqual, a skirmish from the Mexican-American war that killed ~21 people=
=

50 miles from here. I never bothered learning anything about it until I =
=

started this post. Seeing the spot where Arch Duke Ferdinand was =

assassinated in Sarajevo increased my interest in WWI.
Jérémy
2013-09-30 17:43:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas
Post by Jérémy
I'm sort of with you and Ogden. I get very tired of the seeming
obsession in England with WW2.
Yebbut, that's due in large part, I think, because of the closeness.
People remember where bombs dropped in their neighborhood.
I have to disagree. Although I'm British, I live in France, among people
who (or whose parents, at any rate) saw WW2 from much closer than many
British. They talk about it far less enthusiastically than the British, and
that I think is because it's an equivocal memory - they're proud of the
resistance, less proud of collaboration, and recognise the moral
difficulties of the period. The British tend to glory in remembering WW2
because they can claim to have been unequivocally in the right. It's
reductionist and partly bogus, but it persists because it's part of a self-
serving national narrative.
--
Jeremy
K1300GT
The Older Gentleman
2013-09-30 20:01:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jérémy
The British tend to glory in remembering WW2
because they can claim to have been unequivocally in the right.
It's a bit more than that.

Britain went to war on a moral premise, albeit one that got corrupted by
realpolitik later on.

Britain was also the *only* combatant nation that saw the whole thing
through, from September 1939 to August 1945.

Britain was also utterly alone for a year and a half: continued fighting
after everyone else had packed it in.

Whoever said that war movies are Britain's equivalent of the USA's
westerns had it mostly right - the good guys and the bad guys are
clearly identifiable and the good guys always win.

But, ultimately, the world owed Britain a massive debt. Unfortunatel,
Britain ended up with the debt, and had to pay it off.
--
Honda CB400 Four CB125S Triumph Street Triple Ducati 800SS
BMW K1200RS Yamaha 660 Tenere Suzuki GN250 TS250ER x3
So many bikes, so little garage space....
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
YTC#1
2013-09-30 20:26:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Older Gentleman
Post by Jérémy
The British tend to glory in remembering WW2
because they can claim to have been unequivocally in the right.
It's a bit more than that.
Britain went to war on a moral premise, albeit one that got corrupted by
realpolitik later on.
Britain was also the *only* combatant nation that saw the whole thing
through, from September 1939 to August 1945.
Errrmmm, didn't the Germans see the whole thing through as well ? :-)
Charlie
2013-09-30 20:36:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by YTC#1
Post by The Older Gentleman
Post by Jérémy
The British tend to glory in remembering WW2
because they can claim to have been unequivocally in the right.
It's a bit more than that.
Britain went to war on a moral premise, albeit one that got corrupted by
realpolitik later on.
Britain was also the *only* combatant nation that saw the whole thing
through, from September 1939 to August 1945.
Errrmmm, didn't the Germans see the whole thing through as well ? :-)
And the Austrians. They started it!
YTC#1
2013-09-30 21:13:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlie
Post by YTC#1
Post by The Older Gentleman
Post by Jérémy
The British tend to glory in remembering WW2
because they can claim to have been unequivocally in the right.
It's a bit more than that.
Britain went to war on a moral premise, albeit one that got corrupted by
realpolitik later on.
Britain was also the *only* combatant nation that saw the whole thing
through, from September 1939 to August 1945.
Errrmmm, didn't the Germans see the whole thing through as well ? :-)
And the Austrians. They started it!
faux Germans
Andy B
2013-09-30 20:41:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by YTC#1
Post by The Older Gentleman
Post by Jérémy
The British tend to glory in remembering WW2
because they can claim to have been unequivocally in the right.
It's a bit more than that.
Britain went to war on a moral premise, albeit one that got corrupted by
realpolitik later on.
Britain was also the *only* combatant nation that saw the whole thing
through, from September 1939 to August 1945.
Errrmmm, didn't the Germans see the whole thing through as well ? :-)
It's nice to see you keeping up the good work YTC.
YTC#1
2013-09-30 21:15:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy B
Post by YTC#1
Post by The Older Gentleman
Post by Jérémy
The British tend to glory in remembering WW2
because they can claim to have been unequivocally in the right.
It's a bit more than that.
Britain went to war on a moral premise, albeit one that got corrupted by
realpolitik later on.
Britain was also the *only* combatant nation that saw the whole thing
through, from September 1939 to August 1945.
Errrmmm, didn't the Germans see the whole thing through as well ? :-)
It's nice to see you keeping up the good work YTC.
que ? You lost your humour chip again ?

There were two combatants that went from start to finish as far as I can
tell, them and us.
Andy B
2013-10-01 06:19:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by YTC#1
Post by Andy B
Post by YTC#1
Post by The Older Gentleman
Post by Jérémy
The British tend to glory in remembering WW2
because they can claim to have been unequivocally in the right.
It's a bit more than that.
Britain went to war on a moral premise, albeit one that got corrupted by
realpolitik later on.
Britain was also the *only* combatant nation that saw the whole thing
through, from September 1939 to August 1945.
Errrmmm, didn't the Germans see the whole thing through as well ? :-)
It's nice to see you keeping up the good work YTC.
que ? You lost your humour chip again ?
There were two combatants that went from start to finish as far as I can
tell, them and us.
I think this has already been answered so there's no need to explain.
YTC#1
2013-10-01 10:40:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy B
Post by YTC#1
Post by Andy B
Post by YTC#1
Post by The Older Gentleman
Post by Jérémy
The British tend to glory in remembering WW2
because they can claim to have been unequivocally in the right.
It's a bit more than that.
Britain went to war on a moral premise, albeit one that got corrupted by
realpolitik later on.
Britain was also the *only* combatant nation that saw the whole thing
through, from September 1939 to August 1945.
Errrmmm, didn't the Germans see the whole thing through as well ? :-)
It's nice to see you keeping up the good work YTC.
que ? You lost your humour chip again ?
There were two combatants that went from start to finish as far as I can
tell, them and us.
I think this has already been answered so there's no need to explain.
As Ace has pointed out, I have failed to read everything (hey I bet you
don't). That was all that was needed to be pointed out.
Andy B
2013-10-01 17:45:05 UTC
Permalink
snip>
Post by YTC#1
Post by Andy B
Post by YTC#1
Post by Andy B
Post by YTC#1
Post by The Older Gentleman
Britain was also the *only* combatant nation that saw the whole thing
through, from September 1939 to August 1945.
Errrmmm, didn't the Germans see the whole thing through as well ? :-)
It's nice to see you keeping up the good work YTC.
que ? You lost your humour chip again ?
There were two combatants that went from start to finish as far as I can
tell, them and us.
I think this has already been answered so there's no need to explain.
As Ace has pointed out, I have failed to read everything (hey I bet you
don't). That was all that was needed to be pointed out.
I've reduced it to the relevant points and it's not a case of reading
everything, more like reading the post you replied to.

I'm pretty sure TOG wasn't trying to catch anyone (though he may have
been) and it's fairly well documented that the war against Japan lasted
after the Germans surrendered.

What may alter things is if there were Poles fighting alonside the
Allies in the far east in which case they were probably take any prizes
for longest involvement.
Ace
2013-10-01 09:54:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by YTC#1
Post by Andy B
Post by YTC#1
Post by The Older Gentleman
Britain was also the *only* combatant nation that saw the whole thing
through, from September 1939 to August 1945.
Errrmmm, didn't the Germans see the whole thing through as well ? :-)
It's nice to see you keeping up the good work YTC.
que ? You lost your humour chip again ?
There were two combatants that went from start to finish as far as I can
tell, them and us.
Look up VE day and VJ day, then compare with Tog's dates above.

YTC.
YTC#1
2013-10-01 10:39:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ace
Post by YTC#1
Post by Andy B
Post by YTC#1
Post by The Older Gentleman
Britain was also the *only* combatant nation that saw the whole thing
through, from September 1939 to August 1945.
Errrmmm, didn't the Germans see the whole thing through as well ? :-)
It's nice to see you keeping up the good work YTC.
que ? You lost your humour chip again ?
There were two combatants that went from start to finish as far as I can
tell, them and us.
Look up VE day and VJ day, then compare with Tog's dates above.

Ah, fair enough. I was obviously relating to the European theatre only.
I often wonder at which point it became a WW though. As prior to the
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour it was surely just a European war ?
TOG@Toil
2013-10-01 11:45:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by YTC#1
Ah, fair enough. I was obviously relating to the European theatre only.
I often wonder at which point it became a WW though. As prior to the
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour it was surely just a European war ?
I think Pearl Harbor (sic) and the Japanese attack on the British Empire in the Far East is taken as the time when it truly went global. Yes.
The Older Gentleman
2013-10-01 05:57:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by YTC#1
Post by The Older Gentleman
Britain was also the *only* combatant nation that saw the whole thing
through, from September 1939 to August 1945.
Errrmmm, didn't the Germans see the whole thing through as well ? :-)
No.
--
Honda CB400 Four CB125S Triumph Street Triple Ducati 800SS
BMW K1200RS Yamaha 660 Tenere Suzuki GN250 TS250ER x3
So many bikes, so little garage space....
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
Eiron
2013-10-01 10:00:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by YTC#1
Post by The Older Gentleman
Britain was also the *only* combatant nation that saw the whole thing
through, from September 1939 to August 1945.
Errrmmm, didn't the Germans see the whole thing through as well ? :-)
No.
But they started 18 months before us so they're allowed to finish early.
--
Eiron.
YTC#1
2013-10-01 10:40:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eiron
Post by YTC#1
Post by The Older Gentleman
Britain was also the *only* combatant nation that saw the whole thing
through, from September 1939 to August 1945.
Errrmmm, didn't the Germans see the whole thing through as well ? :-)
No.
But they started 18 months before us so they're allowed to finish early.
Fair point :-)
Leszek Karlik
2013-09-30 22:03:08 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 22:01:49 +0200, The Older Gentleman
<***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

[...]
Post by The Older Gentleman
Britain was also the *only* combatant nation that saw the whole thing
through, from September 1939 to August 1945.
Although, to be fair, in 1939 the combativeness of British armed forces
consisted mainly of dropping strongly-worded leaflets of disapproval
upon German heads. :-)

And the Soviets and Japanese also started shooting and invading
in 1939 - the USSR invaded Poland and Japan attacked China.

But yes, Britain was the only combatant nation that saw the
whole thing through on the side of the victors. Russians started
off with a tactical alliance with the Germans, and Germans and
Japanese lost, so they don't count. :-)
Post by The Older Gentleman
Britain was also utterly alone for a year and a half: continued fighting
after everyone else had packed it in.
In Europe, ITYM. The Russians were merrily blasting away at Germans
all this time, too. :-)
--
Leszek 'Leslie' Karlik
http://leslie.hell.pl/
NTV650 & ST995i
The Older Gentleman
2013-10-01 05:57:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leszek Karlik
Post by The Older Gentleman
Britain was also utterly alone for a year and a half: continued fighting
after everyone else had packed it in.
In Europe, ITYM. The Russians were merrily blasting away at Germans
all this time, too. :-)
Your knowledge of history is woefeuly lacking here.

I'm talking about the period from the fall of France until 1941, and my
maths is, as ever, at fault. 12 months, not 18.
--
Honda CB400 Four CB125S Triumph Street Triple Ducati 800SS
BMW K1200RS Yamaha 660 Tenere Suzuki GN250 TS250ER x3
So many bikes, so little garage space....
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
Champ
2013-09-30 22:46:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Older Gentleman
Post by Jérémy
The British tend to glory in remembering WW2
because they can claim to have been unequivocally in the right.
It's a bit more than that.
<here comes a load of self-serving tosh>
Post by The Older Gentleman
Britain went to war on a moral premise, albeit one that got corrupted by
realpolitik later on.
As did France. Their misfortune was not to have a sea between them
and Germany.
Post by The Older Gentleman
Britain was also the *only* combatant nation that saw the whole thing
through, from September 1939 to August 1945.
Apart from Australia, India and New Zealand, at leasts. And anyway,
technically the Japanese had two years head start, from 1937. And
they were *definitely* combatants right to the end.
Post by The Older Gentleman
Britain was also utterly alone for a year and a half: continued fighting
after everyone else had packed it in.
Everyone else?
Post by The Older Gentleman
But, ultimately, the world owed Britain a massive debt. Unfortunatel,
Britain ended up with the debt, and had to pay it off.
There is a fair amount of truth in this. But you do the case no
favours by overstating it.

"I fought the war for your sort"
"Bet you're sorry you won"
--
Champ
neal at champ dot org dot uk
Jérémy
2013-10-01 07:14:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Champ
Post by The Older Gentleman
But, ultimately, the world owed Britain a massive debt. Unfortunatel,
Britain ended up with the debt, and had to pay it off.
There is a fair amount of truth in this. But you do the case no
favours by overstating it.
This. And everything preceding it.
--
Jeremy
K1300GT
TOG@Toil
2013-10-01 11:42:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Older Gentleman
Britain was also the *only* combatant nation that saw the whole thing
through, from September 1939 to August 1945.
Apart from Australia, India and New Zealand, at least.
Ah, yes, you are correct. I did forget the Colonies. I'm not sure if they were sort of automatically signed in when we declared war (as happened in 1914) or whether they had the luxury of choice this time.
technically the Japanese had two years head start, from 1937. And
they were *definitely* combatants right to the end.
Well, that's if you take 1937 as the start date. Generally, the consensus is to run it from September 1939 until August 1945, although I am aware the Russians work their dates from 1941.
Ace
2013-10-01 12:07:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@Toil
Post by The Older Gentleman
Britain was also the *only* combatant nation that saw the whole thing
through, from September 1939 to August 1945.
Apart from Australia, India and New Zealand, at least.
Ah, yes, you are correct. I did forget the Colonies. I'm not sure if they were sort of automatically signed in when we declared war (as happened in 1914) or whether they had the luxury of choice this time.
technically the Japanese had two years head start, from 1937. And
they were *definitely* combatants right to the end.
Well, that's if you take 1937 as the start date. Generally, the consensus is to run it from September 1939 until August 1945, although I am aware the Russians work their dates from 1941.
So, what you're saying is, if we arbitrarily take the start and end
dates based on when Britain declared war on Germany and when the
Japanese finally surrendered, Britain was the only country to have
been at war the whole time.

Wow! Who'd have thought it?
Leszek Karlik
2013-10-01 12:19:02 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 14:07:08 +0200, Ace <***@ifrance.com> wrote:

[...]
Post by Ace
So, what you're saying is, if we arbitrarily take the start and end
dates based on when Britain declared war on Germany and when the
Japanese finally surrendered, Britain was the only country to have
been at war the whole time.
Don't forget the fact that while they were technically "at war"
they left Third Reich to their own devices for over half a year, enabling
the Germans to move back their armies from Poland and invade France.

This is how the Brits brilliantly got themselves into the predicament
of being the only uninvaded or non-neutral country in Europe for some
time.

I also don't see why declaring war and twiddling your thumbs counts,
while having your troops invade Poland, Finland and Baltic States
doesn't count for the USSR.

I guess it wasn't proper. :-)
--
Leszek 'Leslie' Karlik
http://leslie.hell.pl/
NTV650 & ST995i
Salad Dodger
2013-10-01 12:35:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leszek Karlik
I also don't see why declaring war and twiddling your thumbs counts,
while having your troops invade Poland, Finland and Baltic States
doesn't count for the USSR.
I'm sure my dear old dad will be delighted to know he was "twiddling his thumbs" whilst being shelled by the Graf Spee in December '39.
Leszek Karlik
2013-10-01 12:48:30 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 14:35:33 +0200, Salad Dodger <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

[...]
Post by Salad Dodger
Post by Leszek Karlik
I also don't see why declaring war and twiddling your thumbs counts,
while having your troops invade Poland, Finland and Baltic States
doesn't count for the USSR.
I'm sure my dear old dad will be delighted to know he was "twiddling his
thumbs" whilst being shelled by the Graf Spee in December '39.
Your dad sailed on Exeter or Ajax? Cool :-))

Individual British soldiers, sailors and airmen were sometimes
fighting the Germans, of course (after all, you could get shot
down while flying over Germany on a leaflet dropping mission),
the problem was with the British leadership's decisions.
(And also French leadership's decisions, of course)

Still, it is the string of concessions and unwillingness to
attack Germany on the part of Allied powers that lead to Axis
powers occupying most of Europe.

Hindsight is 20/20, but it what it shows clearly
is that British inaction led to the necessity of British
action which resulted in Great Britain being the only
fighting the entire war on the winning side. :-)

(Japan started in 1937, Stalin started in 1939, but
on the wrong side)

And really, WW1 and WW2 should really be called
"the 20th century Industrial War", because it was
really a single conflict with an interim peace
period. Something like the Hundred Years War,
only industrialized, so much shorter and much,
much bloodier.
--
Leszek 'Leslie' Karlik
http://leslie.hell.pl/
NTV650 & ST995i
Eiron
2013-10-01 12:56:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leszek Karlik
Individual British soldiers, sailors and airmen were sometimes
fighting the Germans, of course (after all, you could get shot
And civilians. If you like a good "Boys' Own" adventure story....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00h76wt
--
Eiron.
TOG@Toil
2013-10-01 14:38:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leszek Karlik
Still, it is the string of concessions and unwillingness to
attack Germany on the part of Allied powers that lead to Axis
powers occupying most of Europe.
You really are posting the most fearsome nonsense.

Consider this:-

It took the western Allies the best part of a year to battle their way to western Germany in 1944/45, at a time when their superiority in materiel and firepower was overwhelming.

It took Germany six months to get from Berlin to Moscow. It took Russia five times as long to push them back.

How far do you think they would have got if (say) they'd crossed the Rhine and gone barreling into Germany?

In practical terms, there was *nothing* the western Allies could do to attack Germany properly, and if they'd tried, they'd have been massacred. In offence, the Wehrmacht was frightening. In *defence*, it was superlative. Quite simply the best, by a wide margin.
Hog
2013-10-02 10:40:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@Toil
Post by Leszek Karlik
Still, it is the string of concessions and unwillingness to
attack Germany on the part of Allied powers that lead to Axis
powers occupying most of Europe.
You really are posting the most fearsome nonsense.
Consider this:-
It took the western Allies the best part of a year to battle their
way to western Germany in 1944/45, at a time when their superiority
in materiel and firepower was overwhelming.
It took Germany six months to get from Berlin to Moscow. It took
Russia five times as long to push them back.
How far do you think they would have got if (say) they'd crossed the
Rhine and gone barreling into Germany?
In practical terms, there was *nothing* the western Allies could do
to attack Germany properly, and if they'd tried, they'd have been
massacred. In offence, the Wehrmacht was frightening. In *defence*,
it was superlative. Quite simply the best, by a wide margin.
I think that's mostly correct. The failure to act years earlier by denying
Germany the right to industrialize and rearm cast the dice.
--
Hog

GSXR1000K4 Ducati ST4S GasGas 250 Raga
PipL
2013-10-02 17:54:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@Toil
It took Germany six months to get from Berlin to Moscow. It took Russia five times as long to push them back.
To be fair, though, Stalin was an egotistical twat who thought he knew more
about warfare than his generals. Expensively so in lives, let alone the
effects of the purges.
--
Pip
Scraggy
2013-10-02 18:53:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by PipL
To be fair, though, Stalin was an egotistical twat who thought he knew more
about warfare than his generals.
TBF, the master race laboured under the same problem.
--
I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as
members. Groucho Marx
Leszek Karlik
2013-10-02 22:04:47 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 16:38:24 +0200, ***@Toil
<***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

[...]
Post by ***@Toil
It took the western Allies the best part of a year to battle their way
to western Germany in 1944/45, at a time when their superiority in
materiel and firepower was overwhelming.
It took Germany six months to get from Berlin to Moscow. It took Russia
five times as long to push them back.
How far do you think they would have got if (say) they'd crossed the
Rhine and gone barreling into Germany?
In practical terms, there was *nothing* the western Allies could do to
attack Germany properly, and if they'd tried, they'd have been
massacred. In offence, the Wehrmacht was frightening. In *defence*, it
was superlative. Quite simply the best, by a wide margin.
There was a significant difference in equipment between 1944/1945 Wehrmacht
and the 1939 Wehrmacht. In 1944 there were over 12 million soldiers there
and the German army was hardened by years of combat and experience. In
1939,
there were less than 5 million of them, and Luftwaffe was almost 4 times
smaller, again much less experienced. There was also significant difference
in the defensive installations created to date, and German economy was
still
on peace footing in 1939.

Which is why the professional generals of this best army of the world
told Hitler that it was too early to attack Poland in 1939 and that they
had to finish preparing defensive positions on the West border
to be able to repel French and British attack.

But Hitler told them do as he wanted and ignored their professional
opinions,
because he thought that Western leaders would not attack him, instead
doing nothing. And he was right.

I think that the opinion of professional German generals that Wehrmacht
is not capable of simultaneous attack on Poland and defense against France
is a more credible opinion than using the situation from 1945 as an
example.

And, of course, 1939 didn't happen out of the blue. Appeasment politics
gave Nazi Germany the time to arm themselves.

The first hostilities of World War 2 happened in 1937 in the East, by
Japan, and in 1938 in Europe, when Germany annexed Sudetenlands. This
was the time to put them down, Wehrmacht was really much weaker, but
everybody let Hitler have what he wanted instead (Poland was as much
at fault here, as we occupied a part of Czechoslovakia ourselves).

Still, it were mainly British and French leadership's decisions that
led to Britain being the only piece of non-neutral and non-occupied
Allied territory in Europe for some time.
--
Leszek 'Leslie' Karlik
http://leslie.hell.pl/
NTV650 & ST995i
Salad Dodger
2013-10-01 17:00:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leszek Karlik
Post by Salad Dodger
I'm sure my dear old dad will be delighted to know he was "twiddling his
thumbs" whilst being shelled by the Graf Spee in December '39.
Your dad sailed on Exeter or Ajax? Cool :-))
Ajax. Got his leg torn open from hip to ankle by shrapnel and had it stitched up by the ship's sailmaker. It was an "untidy" scar, some 20 years later when I remember seeing it as a nipper. He would have turmed 20 some 10 weeks previously. It would have been his birthday today, as it 'appens. His 94th.
Leszek Karlik
2013-10-02 22:14:32 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 19:00:34 +0200, Salad Dodger <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

[...]
Post by Salad Dodger
Post by Leszek Karlik
Post by Salad Dodger
I'm sure my dear old dad will be delighted to know he was "twiddling
his
Post by Salad Dodger
thumbs" whilst being shelled by the Graf Spee in December '39.
Your dad sailed on Exeter or Ajax? Cool :-))
Ajax. Got his leg torn open from hip to ankle by shrapnel and had it
stitched up by the ship's sailmaker. It was an "untidy" scar, some 20
years later when I remember seeing it as a nipper. He would have turmed
20 some 10 weeks previously. It would have been his birthday today, as
it 'appens. His 94th.
I've noticed I'm pretty young for this group - in my case my grandfather
fought the Germans, not my father. :-)

And my point is that you have to really cherry-pick your assumptions to
get "Britain was the only combatant for the whole war". For example, after
Poland was occupied, Polish warships were still fighting the Germans along
the British fleet (OK, a few subs and destroyers, really, we didn't have
much of a navy), and fighters were helping defend Britain against air
raids.
Free French, Czech, Dutch, Belgian etc. armies made up a noticeable
percentage of Allied armies. So why shouldn't they count?

Yes, their territories was occupied, but there was a continuity of
government,
and it's not like Britain stood on its own against Nazi threat - without
supplies
from the US British industry would not stand against German and captured
factories.
The US was technically neutral, but in an industrialized war not actually
shooting at stuff didn't mean they did not participate by sending materiel
to European forces.

And Japanese still win the "duration of fighting" dick-waving contest. :-)
--
Leszek 'Leslie' Karlik
http://leslie.hell.pl/
NTV650 & ST995i
The Older Gentleman
2013-10-01 19:08:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leszek Karlik
Your dad sailed on Exeter or Ajax? Cool :-))
Don't forget Achillles...
--
Honda CB400 Four CB125S Triumph Street Triple Ducati 800SS
BMW K1200RS Yamaha 660 Tenere Suzuki GN250 TS250ER x3
So many bikes, so little garage space....
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
TOG@Toil
2013-10-01 12:40:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leszek Karlik
Don't forget the fact that while they were technically "at war"
they left Third Reich to their own devices for over half a year, enabling
the Germans to move back their armies from Poland and invade France.
Erm, there was very little Britain *could* do. It certainly did't have the men, the materiel, nor the planning for an invasion and conquest of Germany.

And, combined, France and Britain should have stopped Germany in its tracks in May 1940. Unfortunately, they were up against the best army the planet had seen.

Britain prosecuted the war at sea, because that was what it did *best*. Britain, historically, was hardly ever a major land power in Europe. 1914-18 was one exception, and then only by force of circumstances, not choice.
Leszek Karlik
2013-10-01 12:54:00 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 14:40:48 +0200, ***@Toil
<***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

[...]
Post by ***@Toil
Erm, there was very little Britain *could* do. It certainly did't have
the men, the materiel, nor the planning for an invasion and conquest of
Germany.
In 1939, Germany didn't have the men nor the materiel to defend themselves
on the second front either.

But of course we know that now, but nobody was sure then. Hitler's actions
were pretty risky and he gambled on Britain and France not doing anything
right away. He gambled correctly, unfortunately for Europe.
Post by ***@Toil
And, combined, France and Britain should have stopped Germany in its
tracks in May 1940. Unfortunately, they were up against the best army
the planet had seen.
I'd say the US nowadays has the best army the planet has seen, but
yes, the Germans don't do anything halfway. Still, in 1939 German
army was much, much weaker, the military buildup of the Third Reich
was pretty amazing.
--
Leszek 'Leslie' Karlik
http://leslie.hell.pl/
NTV650 & ST995i
ogden
2013-10-01 13:20:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@Toil
Britain, historically, was hardly ever a major land power in Europe.
1914-18 was one exception
And 1154-1453
--
ogden

990SMT - bouncy orange tractor
GSXR1000 - vintage sports-tourer
Leszek Karlik
2013-10-01 13:34:04 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 15:20:56 +0200, ogden <***@pre.org> wrote:

[...]
Post by ogden
Post by ***@Toil
Britain, historically, was hardly ever a major land power in Europe.
1914-18 was one exception
And 1154-1453
Technically, that wasn't Britain, just the Kingdom of England. :-)
--
Leszek 'Leslie' Karlik
http://leslie.hell.pl/
NTV650 & ST995i
ogden
2013-10-01 14:03:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leszek Karlik
[...]
Post by ogden
Post by ***@Toil
Britain, historically, was hardly ever a major land power in Europe.
1914-18 was one exception
And 1154-1453
Technically, that wasn't Britain, just the Kingdom of England. :-)
Like there's a difference.
--
ogden

990SMT - bouncy orange tractor
GSXR1000 - vintage sports-tourer
Adrian
2013-10-01 16:09:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leszek Karlik
Post by ogden
Post by ***@Toil
Britain, historically, was hardly ever a major land power in Europe.
1914-18 was one exception
And 1154-1453
Technically, that wasn't Britain, just the Kingdom of England. :-)
England + Wales, post 1284.
wessie
2013-10-01 23:28:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leszek Karlik
[...]
Post by ogden
Post by ***@Toil
Britain, historically, was hardly ever a major land power in Europe.
1914-18 was one exception
And 1154-1453
Technically, that wasn't Britain, just the Kingdom of England. :-)
Henry V was Welsh
TOG@Toil
2013-10-01 14:41:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by ogden
Post by ***@Toil
Britain, historically, was hardly ever a major land power in Europe.
1914-18 was one exception
And 1154-1453
I did think about that and decided to leave it. Historically, British involvement in Europe was limited to France, with the occasional scrap in the Netherlands and Belgium.

You have exceptions - the Peninsular War, the war with Denmark, and so on, but really, I think Britain was content to be a maritime power for most of the time.
c***@NOSPAM.netunix.com
2013-10-01 15:04:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@Toil
Britain prosecuted the war at sea, because that was what it did *best*. Britain, historically, was hardly ever a major land power in Europe. 1914-18 was one exception, and then only by force of circumstances, not choice.
You are forgetting when we owned large chunks of what is now France.
ISTR we lost Calais and the surrounding area to Napoleon in the 19th
century.
--
05 Yamaha YP400 Majesty - Shopping trolley and general workhorse.
75 Suzuki GT750 Kettle - Classic lardy 2smoke tourer.
81 Suzuki GT200 X5 - 2smoke fun - Wheeeeeee,
Ace
2013-10-01 15:13:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@NOSPAM.netunix.com
Post by ***@Toil
Britain prosecuted the war at sea, because that was what it did *best*. Britain, historically, was hardly ever a major land power in Europe. 1914-18 was one exception, and then only by force of circumstances, not choice.
You are forgetting when we owned large chunks of what is now France.
"We" didn't. It just happened that the King of England at that time
was also the owner of various other foreign bits.
Post by c***@NOSPAM.netunix.com
ISTR we lost Calais and the surrounding area to Napoleon in the 19th
century.
Good to know that your postings can still be taken as an absolute of
innacuracy and error. But what's three centuries between friends, eh?
ogden
2013-10-01 15:16:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@NOSPAM.netunix.com
Post by ***@Toil
Britain prosecuted the war at sea, because that was what it did *best*. Britain, historically, was hardly ever a major land power in Europe. 1914-18 was one exception, and then only by force of circumstances, not choice.
You are forgetting when we owned large chunks of what is now France.
Do at least try and keep up at the back.
--
ogden

990SMT - bouncy orange tractor
GSXR1000 - vintage sports-tourer
TOG@Toil
2013-10-01 15:34:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@NOSPAM.netunix.com
ISTR we lost Calais and the surrounding area to Napoleon in the 19th
century.
Was that before or after Waterloo?
Krusty
2013-10-01 15:37:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@Toil
Post by c***@NOSPAM.netunix.com
ISTR we lost Calais and the surrounding area to Napoleon in the
19th century.
Was that before or after Waterloo?
It was definitely before his exile to Elsan.
--
Krusty

Raptor 1000 MV 750 Senna Fantic Hiro 250
wessie
2013-10-01 23:29:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Krusty
Post by ***@Toil
Post by c***@NOSPAM.netunix.com
ISTR we lost Calais and the surrounding area to Napoleon in the
19th century.
Was that before or after Waterloo?
It was definitely before his exile to Elsan.
don't be potty
PipL
2013-10-02 17:55:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by wessie
Post by Krusty
Post by ***@Toil
Post by c***@NOSPAM.netunix.com
ISTR we lost Calais and the surrounding area to Napoleon in the
19th century.
Was that before or after Waterloo?
It was definitely before his exile to Elsan.
don't be potty
I was bowled over by that comment.
--
Pip
Champ
2013-10-02 21:57:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@Toil
Post by The Older Gentleman
Britain was also the *only* combatant nation that saw the whole thing
through, from September 1939 to August 1945.
Apart from Australia, India and New Zealand, at least.
Ah, yes, you are correct. I did forget the Colonies. I'm not sure if they were sort of automatically signed in when we declared war (as happened in 1914) or whether they had the luxury of choice this time.
Separately, apparently (I looked it up)
Post by ***@Toil
technically the Japanese had two years head start, from 1937. And
they were *definitely* combatants right to the end.
Well, that's if you take 1937 as the start date. Generally, the consensus is to run it from September 1939 until August 1945, although I am aware the Russians work their dates from 1941.
Mostly cos history was written by Europeans :-)
- was Japan a WW2 combatant? - yes?
- when did Japan start it's war of expansion? - 1937.

QED

Not my original work, of course - I got it from BBC TV historian
whose name I can't remember. Not Schama. The younger, slightly
right-wing one.
--
Champ
neal at champ dot org dot uk
Jérémy
2013-09-30 12:41:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlie
Post by Jérémy
So... what else do you think I should read to have an enlightened
understanding of the first world war and its aftermath?
For naval history, Robert K Massie: Dreadnought for the frenetic
technological lead-up to WW1, and Castles of Steel for the thing itself.
Having said that, I'm with Ogden on all this. Learn and move on.
Apropos (and this isn't intended as a comment on your recommendations,
which look very interesting, but they reminded me): does anyone know the
origin of the observation to the effect that military history bears the
same relationship to history that military music bears to music? I'm
drawing a blank with Google.
--
Jeremy
K1300GT
Charlie
2013-09-30 13:16:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jérémy
Apropos (and this isn't intended as a comment on your recommendations,
which look very interesting, but they reminded me): does anyone know the
origin of the observation to the effect that military history bears the
same relationship to history that military music bears to music? I'm
drawing a blank with Google.
The same sort of thought:
Military justice is to justice what military music is to music. [Groucho
Marx]
Jérémy
2013-09-30 13:42:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlie
Military justice is to justice what military music is to music
Well done. That must be it - some historian probably plagiarized it.
--
Jeremy
K1300GT
Eiron
2013-09-30 14:12:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlie
Military justice is to justice what military music is to music. [Groucho
Marx]
Another of those things that he never actually said?
--
Eiron.
Krusty
2013-09-30 14:17:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eiron
Post by Charlie
Military justice is to justice what military music is to music.
[Groucho Marx]
Another of those things that he never actually said?
Exactly. Everyone knows it was Morgan Freeman who said that.

Or was it Taylor Swift?
--
Krusty

Raptor 1000 MV 750 Senna Fantic Hiro 250
Charlie
2013-09-30 14:33:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eiron
Post by Charlie
Military justice is to justice what military music is to music. [Groucho
Marx]
Another of those things that he never actually said?
Quite possibly. Clemenceau appears to have got there before him.
Grimly Curmudgeon
2013-09-30 15:30:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlie
Post by Eiron
Post by Charlie
Military justice is to justice what military music is to music. [Groucho
Marx]
Another of those things that he never actually said?
Quite possibly. Clemenceau appears to have got there before him.
I suspect Dreyfus had a thought on the matter.
Eiron
2013-09-30 15:50:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grimly Curmudgeon
Post by Charlie
Post by Eiron
Post by Charlie
Military justice is to justice what military music is to music. [Groucho
Marx]
Another of those things that he never actually said?
Quite possibly. Clemenceau appears to have got there before him.
I suspect Dreyfus had a thought on the matter.
Wasn't that affair fictionalized by Emily Zola in her novel 'Jack Hughes'?
--
Eiron.
Jérémy
2013-09-30 18:05:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eiron
Wasn't that affair fictionalized by Emily Zola in her novel 'Jack Hughes'?
Bravo!
--
Jeremy
K1300GT
Jérémy
2013-09-30 18:04:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlie
Post by Eiron
Post by Charlie
Military justice is to justice what military music is to music.
[Groucho Marx]
Another of those things that he never actually said?
Quite possibly. Clemenceau appears to have got there before him.
Oh, it wasn't, was it? I'm getting rather fond of Clemenceau.

<Googles> Apparently so. Thank you for that.

The book by Margaret Macmillan that I referred to above is full of
wonderful character sketches. Of the principals, Lloyd George is mercurial
and a bit ignorant, Clemenceau irascible; both are very witty. Wilson is a
pompous bore, but his heart is in the right place. I like Clemenceau, I
have a soft spot for upper class radicals.
--
Jeremy
K1300GT
Grimly Curmudgeon
2013-09-30 15:23:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jérémy
So... what else do you think I should read to have an enlightened
understanding of the first world war and its aftermath?
"Ten Days That Changed The World" by Richard Pipes.
Detailed stuff about the Russian Revolution and the lead-up and very
interesting.
Jérémy
2013-09-30 17:51:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grimly Curmudgeon
Post by Jérémy
So... what else do you think I should read to have an enlightened
understanding of the first world war and its aftermath?
"Ten Days That Changed The World" by Richard Pipes.
Detailed stuff about the Russian Revolution and the lead-up and very
interesting.
Yes, I thought my original post was getting a bit long to throw in the
Russian revolution too, but I've read "Ten Days That Shook The World"[1]. I
wouldn't recommend it to anyone else, and I might have to have a look at
Pipes' book rather than trudge through the classic again.

[1] I am not, and never have been, a member of the SWP, much less the IMG,
but I did have a bit of a flirtation with the Fourth International as a
callow student.
--
Jeremy
K1300GT
Leszek Karlik
2013-09-30 16:13:53 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 11:03:01 +0200, J=C3=A9r=C3=A9my <***@b.com> wrote:

[...]
Post by Jérémy
So... what else do you think I should read to have an enlightened
understanding of the first world war and its aftermath?
Are audiobooks OK? :-) The Teaching Company had two very
nice lecture cycles, World War I: The Great War and
World War II: A Military and Social History.

I've listened to them one after another last year
during long bike trips, and they were quite good.

(Other stuff by TTC is also usually quite good)

-- =

Leszek 'Leslie' Karlik
http://leslie.hell.pl/
NTV650 & ST995i
Jérémy
2013-09-30 17:53:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leszek Karlik
[...]
Post by Jérémy
So... what else do you think I should read to have an enlightened
understanding of the first world war and its aftermath?
Are audiobooks OK? :-) The Teaching Company had two very
nice lecture cycles, World War I: The Great War and
World War II: A Military and Social History.
I may need commuting entertainment this winter (see another post above), so
perhaps I need to learn about audio books. Thanks, I'll have a look.
--
Jeremy
K1300GT
Andy B
2013-09-30 17:58:49 UTC
Permalink
Jérémy <***@b.com> wrote:

snip>
Post by Jérémy
So... what else do you think I should read to have an enlightened
understanding of the first world war and its aftermath?
I've recently started reading The Gathering Storm because it's one of
those books that I've often thought I should read and it was cheap on
the Kindle. It gives an interesting insight into what happened between
the wars but you have to keep reminding yourself that it's more than
slightly biased and it'd be interesting to read something from 'the
other side' iyswim.
Jérémy
2013-09-30 18:34:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy B
snip>
Post by Jérémy
So... what else do you think I should read to have an enlightened
understanding of the first world war and its aftermath?
I've recently started reading The Gathering Storm because it's one of
those books that I've often thought I should read and it was cheap on
the Kindle. It gives an interesting insight into what happened between
the wars but you have to keep reminding yourself that it's more than
slightly biased and it'd be interesting to read something from 'the
other side' iyswim.
There's no point in looking for an unbiased account. Part of the fun is
peoples' individual voices and perspectives. I'm quite a fan of
Churchill. Actually, I'm quite a fan of the Edwardians in general, at
least the toffs. They had the leisure to be cultured, and an attractive
attitude of noblesse (or even upper-middle-classness) oblige. They wrote
well.

Of Churchill, I best liked "My Early Life", before it all got serious.
Another great adventure story. Although, what kind of a narcissist writes
an autobiography when he's 30 years old?
--
Jeremy
K1300GT
The Older Gentleman
2013-09-30 20:01:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jérémy
Although, what kind of a narcissist writes
an autobiography when he's 30 years old?
A lot of music and film divas regard it as de rigeur to write their
autobiogs *before* they reach 30....
--
Honda CB400 Four CB125S Triumph Street Triple Ducati 800SS
BMW K1200RS Yamaha 660 Tenere Suzuki GN250 TS250ER x3
So many bikes, so little garage space....
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
CT
2013-10-01 08:41:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Older Gentleman
Post by Jérémy
Although, what kind of a narcissist writes
an autobiography when he's 30 years old?
A lot of music and film divas regard it as de rigeur to write their
autobiogs before they reach 30....
Katie Price has already written four, and is about to release the
fifth, but then she is 35...
--
Chris
Jérémy
2013-10-01 09:50:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by CT
Post by Jérémy
Although, what kind of a narcissist writes
an autobiography when he's 30 years old?
...
Post by CT
Katie Price has already written four, and is about to release the
fifth, but then she is 35...
Who?

<Googles> Oh.
--
Jeremy
K1300GT
Eiron
2013-10-01 09:57:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Older Gentleman
Post by Jérémy
Although, what kind of a narcissist writes
an autobiography when he's 30 years old?
A lot of music and film divas regard it as de rigeur to write their
autobiogs *before* they reach 30....
That's 'write' in the loosest sense, as in get your agent to find a ghost.
And it's best to start at 26, just in case....
--
Eiron.
Andy B
2013-09-30 20:20:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jérémy
Post by Andy B
snip>
Post by Jérémy
So... what else do you think I should read to have an enlightened
understanding of the first world war and its aftermath?
I've recently started reading The Gathering Storm because it's one of
those books that I've often thought I should read and it was cheap on
the Kindle. It gives an interesting insight into what happened between
the wars but you have to keep reminding yourself that it's more than
slightly biased and it'd be interesting to read something from 'the
other side' iyswim.
There's no point in looking for an unbiased account. Part of the fun is
peoples' individual voices and perspectives. I'm quite a fan of
Churchill. Actually, I'm quite a fan of the Edwardians in general, at
least the toffs. They had the leisure to be cultured, and an attractive
well.
Of Churchill, I best liked "My Early Life", before it all got serious.
Another great adventure story. Although, what kind of a narcissist writes
an autobiography when he's 30 years old?
I can never make up my mind whether Churchill was a genius or one of the
luckiest men ever born. Either way we're lucky he was British.
Champ
2013-09-30 22:48:44 UTC
Permalink
I'm quite a fan of Churchill.
Obviously not a miner.
--
Champ
neal at champ dot org dot uk
Jérémy
2013-10-01 07:18:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Champ
I'm quite a fan of Churchill.
Obviously not a miner.
Well, no. Nor a WW1 Australian soldier, or any of the many others who
suffered as a result of his actions. But that isn't really what I meant - I
doubt I'd be keen on him if he was still alive, but he's a very colourful
historical figure, and he wrote well.

And I have to acknowledge he was the right person at the right time during
WW2.
--
Jeremy
K1300GT
Grimly Curmudgeon
2013-10-01 23:37:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jérémy
Of Churchill, I best liked "My Early Life", before it all got serious.
Another great adventure story. Although, what kind of a narcissist writes
an autobiography when he's 30 years old?
To be fair, he had done a shitload by then.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...