If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   There are people that study history. Then there's this guy   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 148
    More: Amusing, back garden, British troops, WWI  
•       •       •

23362 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Nov 2012 at 1:15 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



148 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-02 12:37:40 PM
My trenchfoot is historically accurate.
 
2012-11-02 12:42:51 PM
What an incredible waste of time and money
 
2012-11-02 01:11:31 PM
He's ready for the zombie apocalypse.
 
2012-11-02 01:16:43 PM

Endive Wombat: What an incredible waste of time and money


...says the man paying a monthly fee for a free message forum.
 
2012-11-02 01:17:48 PM
I am guessing it serves to protect and defend his virginity
 
2012-11-02 01:18:03 PM
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-02 01:18:38 PM
He must not have a HOA...
 
2012-11-02 01:19:38 PM

Carousel Beast: Endive Wombat: What an incredible waste of time and money

...says the man paying a monthly fee for a free message forum.


Zing!

Also, AIRSOFT CQB!
 
2012-11-02 01:20:30 PM
There are people that who study history.

/Pronouns. How do they work?
 
2012-11-02 01:21:29 PM
slowclap.gif

I would love to see that thing if I lived anywhere near him. That's pretty amazing.

/naysayers gonna naysay
 
2012-11-02 01:21:38 PM
World War I was actually quite fascinating....
I don't get why it doesn't receive more attention.
 
2012-11-02 01:21:57 PM
That is freakin' AWESOME! I'd play in that all day...

/inner child is ALL OVER that...
 
2012-11-02 01:22:04 PM
I suspect his wife wants to kick his ass.
 
2012-11-02 01:23:40 PM

BarkingUnicorn: He's ready for the zombie apocalypse.


Only if it was a moat filled with crocodiles.
 
2012-11-02 01:24:04 PM

doczoidberg: World War I was actually quite fascinating....
I don't get why it doesn't receive more attention.


SHUT up Zoidberg!
 
2012-11-02 01:24:44 PM

Big Merl: He must not have a HOA...


exactly what I was thinking
 
2012-11-02 01:25:30 PM
My grandfather was killed in one of those trenches in WW I, and my father spent three and a half years in Italian and German POW camps in WW II.

Not something that one wants to remember, but something one should never forget.
 
2012-11-02 01:25:51 PM
the trench is impressive...
living in it for 24 hours? eh not so much... should have done at least a week.
 
2012-11-02 01:28:04 PM
Uncle Toby?
 
2012-11-02 01:28:17 PM
Uncle Toby is back!
 
2012-11-02 01:28:36 PM

doczoidberg: World War I was actually quite fascinating....
I don't get why it doesn't receive more attention.


Because it was brutal and bloody as hell, is my guess, and widely regarded as the epitome of failure in regards to the chaining treaty thing. It was by and large a massive, unmitigated clusterfark that pretty much can be pointed to as shaping the a lot of how the world is today. Setting the stage for World War 2, the impetus of the League of Nations, fall of Tsarist Russia and rise of the Soviet Union etc etc. It was and is MASSIVELY important, but it doesn't have the sweeping mystique of WW2. No true grand armies sweeping the map (with the exception of the Eastern Front). It was just a massive hell hole that lasted too long, killed too many, and gained no body anything meaningful. It's something that the Europeans tried to desperately forget, because it farked up so much.
 
2012-11-02 01:29:04 PM
Endive Wombat

What an incredible waste of time and money

Perfection! I give this a 10/10. Subtle, to the point, and will get lots of bites. Great troll. Too bad you wasted such a fine work of art on a non-controversial topic. May I recommend the Politics tab?
 
2012-11-02 01:29:07 PM
I see shiat like this and think... wow, humanity really is farked up.

I can't believe we do this kind of crap. It really is sad what we do to each other.
 
2012-11-02 01:29:28 PM
The German Guns

Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom,

Boom, Boom, Boom,

Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom,

Boom, Boom, Boom
 
2012-11-02 01:30:42 PM

Carousel Beast: Endive Wombat: What an incredible waste of time and money

...says the man paying a monthly fee for a free message forum.


Not all of us have paid. Sometimes we can get a sucker I mean nice guy to sponsor us for a month.
 
2012-11-02 01:31:04 PM

Carousel Beast: Endive Wombat: What an incredible waste of time and money

...says the man paying a monthly fee for a free message forum.



encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2012-11-02 01:31:14 PM

Robert1966: Uncle Toby?


*shakes tiny impotent clock-winding key*
 
2012-11-02 01:31:33 PM
I now have a benchmark for my eccentricities.
 
2012-11-02 01:34:21 PM
www.uncut.co.uk

Roger Waters sees what he did there.
 
2012-11-02 01:35:17 PM

Modguy: doczoidberg: World War I was actually quite fascinating....
I don't get why it doesn't receive more attention.

Because it was brutal and bloody as hell, is my guess, and widely regarded as the epitome of failure in regards to the chaining treaty thing. It was by and large a massive, unmitigated clusterfark that pretty much can be pointed to as shaping the a lot of how the world is today. Setting the stage for World War 2, the impetus of the League of Nations, fall of Tsarist Russia and rise of the Soviet Union etc etc. It was and is MASSIVELY important, but it doesn't have the sweeping mystique of WW2. No true grand armies sweeping the map (with the exception of the Eastern Front). It was just a massive hell hole that lasted too long, killed too many, and gained no body anything meaningful. It's something that the Europeans tried to desperately forget, because it farked up so much.


Also, no Nazis. It's easy to make a movie in which everybody hates/kill Nazis (because, really, Nazis). WWI is harder to make movies about though because, no matter what nationality your lead character is, he's not killing evil. He's killing some poor schmuck who's trying to kill him and nobody likes it and very little is accomplished. And they know it.

Best WWI movie I've seen is Joyeux Noel, precisely because it's based on that problem. The story uses it, it doesn't try to hide it.

/just edges out Le Grand Illusion, but that's more of a POW story than a WWI tale in my mind
 
2012-11-02 01:35:23 PM
*Rats, fleas, lice and Spanish Flu sold separately. Some assembly required. Sgt. Robertshaw Chemical Attack on the Western Front playset also sold separately. Chlorine and mustard gas not included.
 
2012-11-02 01:35:28 PM
There is a WWI memorial near me that has a trench running through the middle of the flower bed that you can walk along. It's not as deep and the bottom is well drained and has crushed rock for safer footing what with liability issues these days. It's not perfect but it does give a very small scale representation of trench warfare.
 
2012-11-02 01:35:31 PM
It would be hilarious if his daughter asked for a backyard wedding and reception. I could see that getting quite epic
 
2012-11-02 01:35:36 PM
Looks kick ass for paintball.
 
2012-11-02 01:37:54 PM

Modguy: doczoidberg: World War I was actually quite fascinating....
I don't get why it doesn't receive more attention.

Because it was brutal and bloody as hell, is my guess, and widely regarded as the epitome of failure in regards to the chaining treaty thing. It was by and large a massive, unmitigated clusterfark that pretty much can be pointed to as shaping the a lot of how the world is today. Setting the stage for World War 2, the impetus of the League of Nations, fall of Tsarist Russia and rise of the Soviet Union etc etc. It was and is MASSIVELY important, but it doesn't have the sweeping mystique of WW2. No true grand armies sweeping the map (with the exception of the Eastern Front). It was just a massive hell hole that lasted too long, killed too many, and gained no body anything meaningful. It's something that the Europeans tried to desperately forget, because it farked up so much.


I agree....

I also find WWI to be interesting because it was sort of like the death throes of the old, powerful monarchies.

WWI was the last time they'd be allowed to start a giant war just because of some petty disputes. The modern era had arrived; war had become too hellish for that shiat to fly anymore.

GOODBYE, royal dynasties with any real power!
 
2012-11-02 01:38:15 PM

Big Merl: He must not have a HOA...


apart from the occasional gated community HOA's don't exist in the UK
 
2012-11-02 01:39:46 PM
Hats off to the guy!

If more people remembered/learned history of how horrible war is we'd more than likely have less of it.
 
2012-11-02 01:39:51 PM

doczoidberg: WWI was the last time they'd be allowed to start a giant war just because of some petty disputes. The modern era had arrived; war had become too hellish for that shiat to fly anymore.


I agree with this statement but you would have hoped that the American Revolution would have given them a clue and that the American Civil war would have woken them all up the realities of a more 'modern' war.
 
2012-11-02 01:40:01 PM
'We can hear the gunfire from the house, he uses real rifles used in WWI, but as it isn't very often we don't mind,' Mr Andrews said.


Keeping calm and carrying on. WWI style.

For the real thing, read "Ladies from Hell"
 
2012-11-02 01:40:06 PM
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com 
Blackitt! Blackie! Look at him. He worked on that cake like no one else I've ever known. Some nights it was so cold, we could hardly move, but Blackie'd be out there slicing the lemons, mixing the sugar and the almonds. I mean, you try trying to get butter to melt at fifteen degrees below zero! There's love in that cake.
 
2012-11-02 01:40:10 PM
Came here for a mention of Uncle Toby...leaving satisfied.

"Where were you injured?"
 
2012-11-02 01:40:59 PM
Big Merl: He must not have a HOA...

apart from the occasional gated community HOA's don't exist in the UK



....yet
 
2012-11-02 01:41:25 PM
Nice enough guy.
Just don't mention the war.
 
2012-11-02 01:44:32 PM
BYO nerve gas
 
2012-11-02 01:45:43 PM

Endive Wombat: What an incredible waste of time and money


Who the fark are you? What do you care?
 
2012-11-02 01:45:44 PM

bighairyguy: BYO nerve gas


and tetanus shots.
 
2012-11-02 01:45:54 PM

Gonad the Ballbarian: That is freakin' AWESOME! I'd play in that all day...


I agree. Those saying it's a waste of time and money just don't get it.
 
2012-11-02 01:46:21 PM

Carousel Beast: Endive Wombat: What an incredible waste of time and money

...says the man paying a monthly fee for a free message forum.



Very nice.
 
2012-11-02 01:47:24 PM
Still not as big as your mom's trench, subby.
 
2012-11-02 01:47:48 PM

Lucky LaRue: I suspect his wife wants to kick his ass.


I suspect he has no wife.
 
2012-11-02 01:48:41 PM
The last WW I movie I didn't see, a biplane flew through an exploding dirigible. I think. Also, the guy didn't square his corners. The blast will just sweep around the corners and get him.
 
2012-11-02 01:49:15 PM

doczoidberg: World War I was actually quite fascinating....
I don't get why it doesn't receive more attention.


Americans don't put a cultural emphasis on it because we weren't involved as long or as much as the Europeans.

In Europe, particularly in Britain, France, and Germany, it was a dominant part of the social landscape, even during and after the second war. Hell, our problems in the Balkans and Middle East are heavily influenced by the fallout of those wars to this day.

But as the number of people who remember life furing and after the Great War dwindled, the scars began to fade. The British forgot how to recite "In Flanders Fields" from memory. In France, the Iron Harvest yields ever-fewer relics of death. In Germany, children walk by monuments to soldiers who died in two conflicts they are told their great- and great-great-grandfathers were responsible for starting. In Perth, Australia, there are no more old men answering questions about why the band played Walting Matilda...

Mercifully, the last check has been written, the debt of war is paid, in coin and in blood. We will live with the ramifications of that conflict for at least another three generations. But those who would tell us what happened are gone, and all we have to understand are words on paper and artifacts in museums.

Even the earth is working hard to close its wounds, and the War to End All Wars is as distant to us as The Late Unpleasantness in the southeastern U.S. In time, so too will the same happen to the Second Wold War and even Vietnam.
 
2012-11-02 01:50:13 PM
Anyone got a google maps link for it?
 
2012-11-02 01:51:32 PM

Harry Freakstorm: The last WW I movie I didn't see, a biplane flew through an exploding dirigible.


I don't remember anything about the last movie I didn't see...
 
2012-11-02 01:52:14 PM

Lucky LaRue: I suspect his wife wants to kick his ass.


You're kidding right? She probably loved having him out of the house.
 
2012-11-02 01:54:03 PM
Oh. It's one of those threads where people who commit incredible amounts of time and passion to various hobbies criticize others for committing incredible amounts of time and passion to various hobbies.
 
2012-11-02 01:57:05 PM
www.bbc.co.uk

All you need to know about WWI right here.

Actually that was unusually historically accurate for a off-the-wall comedy. M*A*S*H would probably be a good parallel, where they put in a bunch of heavy-handed commentary on war but had essentially discarded any and all similarities to the Korean War it was supposed to be set in, other than the fact that there's tents and wounded people.

Black Adder goes Forth was true in many ways. The trench layout, interior rooms, miserable living conditions, trying to shuck absurd orders from a command completely distanced from the trench situation, scheme ways to get OUT OF THE FARKING TRENCHES, and, well, the fact that (spoiler alert) they get ordered to rush off in suicidal charge which is, of course, suicidal and they all get mowed down. (massacre of the entire cast being an existing Black Adder tradition)
 
2012-11-02 01:57:09 PM
I really thought this was going to be about how he is being fined by the city he lives in for doing this without their permission.
 
2012-11-02 01:58:20 PM

solokumba: [www.uncut.co.uk image 604x388]

Roger Waters sees what he did there.


Roger Waters Da was killed in WWII, though.
 
2012-11-02 02:00:29 PM
I'd like to mustard gas the shiat out of that.

"Mmm, mustard gas, aaaaaaaaahhhh."

mattcbr.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-11-02 02:01:06 PM

Oznog: [www.bbc.co.uk image 396x222]

All you need to know about WWI right here.

Actually that was unusually historically accurate for a off-the-wall comedy. M*A*S*H would probably be a good parallel, where they put in a bunch of heavy-handed commentary on war but had essentially discarded any and all similarities to the Korean War it was supposed to be set in, other than the fact that there's tents and wounded people.

Black Adder goes Forth was true in many ways. The trench layout, interior rooms, miserable living conditions, trying to shuck absurd orders from a command completely distanced from the trench situation, scheme ways to get OUT OF THE FARKING TRENCHES, and, well, the fact that (spoiler alert) they get ordered to rush off in suicidal charge which is, of course, suicidal and they all get mowed down. (massacre of the entire cast being an existing Black Adder tradition)


Can he do a Charlie Chaplin impersonation?
 
2012-11-02 02:01:39 PM

Egoy3k: doczoidberg: WWI was the last time they'd be allowed to start a giant war just because of some petty disputes. The modern era had arrived; war had become too hellish for that shiat to fly anymore.

I agree with this statement but you would have hoped that the American Revolution would have given them a clue and that the American Civil war would have woken them all up the realities of a more 'modern' war.


You mean the first, second and third Silesian Wars, the Second Italian War of Independence, the Austro-Prussian and Franco-Prussian Wars, and all of the brutal colonial wars? The American Revolution was mild, and the ACW had no political impact in Europe.
 
2012-11-02 02:02:45 PM
What a WWI Tommy may look like

mundabor.files.wordpress.com

/hot like a cappucino
 
2012-11-02 02:04:20 PM
cabbage crates over the briny?
 
2012-11-02 02:04:25 PM
The Imperial War Museum in London has an impressive interactive WW1 Trench display in the basement.

/Would so be this guy if I had the money, time, and gumption.
//Would also be there playing 24/7 when I was a kid.
 
2012-11-02 02:04:31 PM
ecx.images-amazon.com

Excellent documentary series on WWI. The early parts give you a very clear picture of the causes and run up. They have a startling amount of imagery from the time. 

That crazy farker Pershing knew the Armistice was in the works, so he doubled down on aggression in the last few days before the 11th to inflict as much damage on the German army as possible, even after he knew the Germans had signed.
 
2012-11-02 02:05:12 PM

doczoidberg: World War I was actually quite fascinating....
I don't get why it doesn't receive more attention.


Because basically no one won. The allies lost less than the Germans, but it was a cluster.
 
2012-11-02 02:05:13 PM
I feel like the trench could be used as a comedic device. Whenever his wife/work/whatever is bothering him, he'll just escape to the trenches. As soon as the nagging starts, he reaches for the helmet
 
2012-11-02 02:07:15 PM
I salute this this guy for drawing attention to the nasty clusterfark that this war was, illustrating with real trenches the cold and muddy conditions on the continent that those soldiers lived and died in. These were no all-volunteer armies, these were conscripted kids in their early 20's being ordered about by paper officers whose war college lessons and techniques were from the 19th century. WWI was the last to really employ cavalry, the first to use mechanization, and it changed the face of Europe, creating what we have today.
 
2012-11-02 02:07:42 PM

doczoidberg: World War I was actually quite fascinating....
I don't get why it doesn't receive more attention.


Because a larger war occurred 18 years later, over the same issues. Except that war actually resolved things.
 
2012-11-02 02:08:58 PM

rebelyell2006: ACW had no political impact in Europe.


It should have been more important. It was an object lesson about the realities of charging against entrenched positions defended with accurate rifles and the beginnings of high-rate-of-fire weapons.
 
2012-11-02 02:09:16 PM

sporkme: [ecx.images-amazon.com image 300x300]

Excellent documentary series on WWI. The early parts give you a very clear picture of the causes and run up. They have a startling amount of imagery from the time. 

That crazy farker Pershing knew the Armistice was in the works, so he doubled down on aggression in the last few days before the 11th to inflict as much damage on the German army as possible, even after he knew the Germans had signed.


Even better is the book with the same title by John Keegan. His pre and post war analysis was spectacularly depressing and he gives the most non biased review of the war I have ever witnessed. To this day I still blame the Russians and French for the war, not the Germans. OK maybe the Austrians...Blimey!
 
2012-11-02 02:09:56 PM

doczoidberg: World War I was actually quite fascinating....
I don't get why it doesn't receive more attention.


Two reasons:

1) it was a horrible, horrible war. Death and destruction on a massive scale with little reward in the eventual "victory"

2) The US didn't dominate it.
 
2012-11-02 02:10:43 PM

Egoy3k: doczoidberg: WWI was the last time they'd be allowed to start a giant war just because of some petty disputes. The modern era had arrived; war had become too hellish for that shiat to fly anymore.

I agree with this statement but you would have hoped that the American Revolution would have given them a clue and that the American Civil war would have woken them all up the realities of a more 'modern' war.


Eh, have to remember that after the Revolution, the French had their own Revolution. That resulted in a pretty massive reactionary backlash called the Concert of Europe. For a good while, it prolonged the life and sway of Monarchies and Dynasties. Point granted on the American Civil War bit, as it was a good indicator that war was about to get very, very bad. The problem is that some of the most profoundly deadly and game changing weapons were only starting to be rolled out near the end (Iron Clads, Gatling Gun, proto trench warfare, etc etc) and thus the lesson (at the time) was seen that the noble/aristocratic cavalryman and brilliant generals could carry the day and win wars against insurmountable odds. Combined with the fact that Romanticism was still a relatively powerful movement near the end of the Civil War, it helped gloss over a bit of the brutality that was starting to become common near the end.
 
2012-11-02 02:11:58 PM

This text is now purple: doczoidberg: World War I was actually quite fascinating....
I don't get why it doesn't receive more attention.

Because a larger war occurred 18 years later, over the same issues. Except that war actually resolved things.


Actually some historians lump the two wars together as one great war due to this. I agree with their analysis.
 
2012-11-02 02:13:04 PM

bugcrusher: I salute this this guy for drawing attention to the nasty clusterfark that this war was, illustrating with real trenches the cold and muddy conditions on the continent that those soldiers lived and died in. These were no all-volunteer armies, these were conscripted kids in their early 20's being ordered about by paper officers whose war college lessons and techniques were from the 19th century. WWI was the last to really employ cavalry, the first to use mechanization, and it changed the face of Europe, creating what we have today.


Don't forget the number of Servants who were essentially forced to go to war with the children of nobility and die in their stead.
 
2012-11-02 02:14:10 PM

rebelyell2006: You mean the first, second and third Silesian Wars, the Second Italian War of Independence, the Austro-Prussian and Franco-Prussian Wars, and all of the brutal colonial wars? The American Revolution was mild, and the ACW had no political impact in Europe.


Lets not get into a pissing contest about who had the most 'brutal' wars if we can help it but the Silesia wars were about 100 years prior to the ACW so my point about a 'modern' war should still apply. The casualties of the Franco-Prussian Wars and the Italian independence wars weren't even of the same order of magnitude as the ACW.

I do agree that the American Revolutionary war was a shiatty example for me to use in terms of dates and casualties I just have it on the brain due to Assassins Creed 3.
 
2012-11-02 02:15:56 PM

topcon: I'd like to mustard gas the shiat out of that.

"Mmm, mustard gas, aaaaaaaaahhhh."

[mattcbr.files.wordpress.com image 314x360]


www.famouspictures.org
 
2012-11-02 02:21:55 PM
"Can I play? I'm in ARMY"
 
2012-11-02 02:22:53 PM
1914:
i1156.photobucket.com


1999:
i1156.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-02 02:28:44 PM
If I did that here in Chicago i would need a permit
 
2012-11-02 02:28:48 PM
How can that guy afford a detached house and all that land in Surrey? That' s gotta be worth a fortune.

\moving to England
\\where homes are even more expensive than in SoCal
\\\good-bye Los Angeles, CA
\\\\hello, Guildford, Surrey!
 
2012-11-02 02:30:21 PM

sporkme: 1914:
[i1156.photobucket.com image 430x640]


1999:
[i1156.photobucket.com image 348x244]


I like the kids in the hall sketch where the Bosnian cabbie is accusing everyone of being a Serbian Bastard.
 
2012-11-02 02:30:52 PM

Nightsweat: cabbage crates over the briny?


Top hole. Bally Jerry pranged his kite right in the how's your father. Hairy blighter, dicky-birdied, feathered back on his Sammy, took a waspy, flipped over on his Betty Harper's and caught his can in the Bertie.
 
2012-11-02 02:31:29 PM
ARMY
 
2012-11-02 02:36:56 PM
He just needs 50,000 corpses laying around in the baking sun to nail it.
 
2012-11-02 02:37:07 PM

UNC_Samurai: doczoidberg: World War I was actually quite fascinating....
I don't get why it doesn't receive more attention.

Americans don't put a cultural emphasis on it because we weren't involved as long or as much as the Europeans.

In Europe, particularly in Britain, France, and Germany, it was a dominant part of the social landscape, even during and after the second war. Hell, our problems in the Balkans and Middle East are heavily influenced by the fallout of those wars to this day.

But as the number of people who remember life furing and after the Great War dwindled, the scars began to fade. The British forgot how to recite "In Flanders Fields" from memory. In France, the Iron Harvest yields ever-fewer relics of death. In Germany, children walk by monuments to soldiers who died in two conflicts they are told their great- and great-great-grandfathers were responsible for starting. In Perth, Australia, there are no more old men answering questions about why the band played Walting Matilda...

Mercifully, the last check has been written, the debt of war is paid, in coin and in blood. We will live with the ramifications of that conflict for at least another three generations. But those who would tell us what happened are gone, and all we have to understand are words on paper and artifacts in museums.

Even the earth is working hard to close its wounds, and the War to End All Wars is as distant to us as The Late Unpleasantness in the southeastern U.S. In time, so too will the same happen to the Second Wold War and even Vietnam.


An interesting theory and I generally agree with most of your post, but it doesn't explain why Canadians put little cultural emphasis, other than wearing a red poppy for a few days in november, on it even though they were involved from the very beginning to the very end. Anecdotally, "In Flanders Fields" was written by a Canadian who later died in that terrible war. Recitals of this poem can still be heard around Nov 11th each year wherever rememberance ceremonies are held. It can be quite moving, actually.
 
2012-11-02 02:37:54 PM

Egoy3k: rebelyell2006: You mean the first, second and third Silesian Wars, the Second Italian War of Independence, the Austro-Prussian and Franco-Prussian Wars, and all of the brutal colonial wars? The American Revolution was mild, and the ACW had no political impact in Europe.

Lets not get into a pissing contest about who had the most 'brutal' wars if we can help it but the Silesia wars were about 100 years prior to the ACW so my point about a 'modern' war should still apply. The casualties of the Franco-Prussian Wars and the Italian independence wars weren't even of the same order of magnitude as the ACW.

I do agree that the American Revolutionary war was a shiatty example for me to use in terms of dates and casualties I just have it on the brain due to Assassins Creed 3.


In terms of a 'modern' war, the Franco-Prussian War represents effective mobilization of conscripts, modern weapons (breechloaders, steel-tube artillery, and so on) and attempts at establishing modern tactics. Whereas the ACW was amateur hour warfare between two loosely-organized nations attempting to industrialize. Had Napoleon III and Bazaine managed to escape encirclement, the war would have dragged on for perhaps a year or two and would have been the bloody clusterfark of World War I.

And don't forget that the Geneva Convention was inspired by Solferino. The ACW casualties by far resulted from the squandering of manpower in camplife and campaigning over many years of combat, and not actual battlefield casualties.
 
2012-11-02 02:43:16 PM

rebelyell2006: Egoy3k: rebelyell2006: You mean the first, second and third Silesian Wars, the Second Italian War of Independence, the Austro-Prussian and Franco-Prussian Wars, and all of the brutal colonial wars? The American Revolution was mild, and the ACW had no political impact in Europe.

Lets not get into a pissing contest about who had the most 'brutal' wars if we can help it but the Silesia wars were about 100 years prior to the ACW so my point about a 'modern' war should still apply. The casualties of the Franco-Prussian Wars and the Italian independence wars weren't even of the same order of magnitude as the ACW.

I do agree that the American Revolutionary war was a shiatty example for me to use in terms of dates and casualties I just have it on the brain due to Assassins Creed 3.

In terms of a 'modern' war, the Franco-Prussian War represents effective mobilization of conscripts, modern weapons (breechloaders, steel-tube artillery, and so on) and attempts at establishing modern tactics. Whereas the ACW was amateur hour warfare between two loosely-organized nations attempting to industrialize. Had Napoleon III and Bazaine managed to escape encirclement, the war would have dragged on for perhaps a year or two and would have been the bloody clusterfark of World War I.

And don't forget that the Geneva Convention was inspired by Solferino. The ACW casualties by far resulted from the squandering of manpower in camplife and campaigning over many years of combat, and not actual battlefield casualties.


You are mostly correct, but I think you understate the importance of the ACW in certain aspects.
The Franco-Prussian War WAS the first effective mobilization of conscripts, but the widespread use of railroads to rapidly move men and material happened in the ACW.

It also demonstrated the potential of effective breech loading small-arms and artillery. A lot of earnest development was going on during this time to resolve technical issues associated with those types of weapons.
 
2012-11-02 02:43:56 PM
Now if he has the space and ambition to put up a German trench oopposite, it would really do it right. Let's not forget snipers, rats, dead bodies, spending weeks in water above your ankles, no food for days, the intermittant mortar barages dropping shells in your trench, the cooties, freezing to death while keeping watch, idiotic officers far outnumbering the good ones... my father was there, and finally told me some of this a year or two before he knew he was about to die of old age.
 
2012-11-02 02:44:16 PM

All2morrowsparTs: This text is now purple: doczoidberg: World War I was actually quite fascinating....
I don't get why it doesn't receive more attention.

Because a larger war occurred 18 years later, over the same issues. Except that war actually resolved things.

Actually some historians lump the two wars together as one great war due to this. I agree with their analysis.


I'd agree too, except on the resolution bit.

I think where WWI was horrific, WWII raised the bar and made almost everyone on the globe a participant. Then it finished with the most horrific revelation possible: "why yes, we can make things worse!" *nuke*

Once the shock wore off and nations got their footing, the Cold War came along and everyone changed sides to prepare for round 3.
I'd postpone the end of the world wars till the fall of the Berlin Wall.

/there are still some old Hatreds simmering tho.
/maybe we're just experiencing an intermission.
 
2012-11-02 02:47:43 PM
To the Americans: You are now witnessing the effect of several decades of Marmite consumption. 
To the English: Don't worry, we still cannot explain Jersey Shore, American Idol, and pretty much anything currently available on cable. Yes, we drank the Kool Aid.

Nothing to see here....move along....
 
2012-11-02 02:47:56 PM

Egoy3k: rebelyell2006: You mean the first, second and third Silesian Wars, the Second Italian War of Independence, the Austro-Prussian and Franco-Prussian Wars, and all of the brutal colonial wars? The American Revolution was mild, and the ACW had no political impact in Europe.

Lets not get into a pissing contest about who had the most 'brutal' wars if we can help it but the Silesia wars were about 100 years prior to the ACW so my point about a 'modern' war should still apply. The casualties of the Franco-Prussian Wars and the Italian independence wars weren't even of the same order of magnitude as the ACW.

I do agree that the American Revolutionary war was a shiatty example for me to use in terms of dates and casualties I just have it on the brain due to Assassins Creed 3.


The First World War tactically is different from the American Civil War for four reasons - three technological and one socio-geographical.

The first and most obvious is the introduction of self-contained ammunition. Load a clip with 5 bullets, fire until expended, then load a new one. Whereas a veteran Federal or Confederate regiment could put up a sustained volley of 3 rounds a minute for about ten minutes (assuming the unit was completely stationary) before needing more ammunition. A British or German Great War regiment can fire approximately 15 rounds per minute - and they can advance while firing.

The second, and also obvious, innovation is the machine gun. There is no reliable way for infantry in 1914-1918 to deal with a machine gun. You have to rely on accurate artillery (and that requires some means of communication, which still isn't available tactically) or bypass the strongpoint.

The third and often overlooked innovation was the introduction of reliable aerial reconnaissance. It becomes far easier for armies to locate an opposing force with machines that are only a decade away from the first powered flight. All these things feed into the fourth and most important difference:

The size of armies relative to the size of the theater of war. The Western Front turns into a war of attrition because armies numbering in the millions can locate each other and have little room to maneuver. We see trench warfare in the American Civil War, but we also see it in countless other conflicts stretching back to antiquity. Static trench warfare is limited to certain sieges (Vicksburg, Petersburg) once a defending army is forced to defend a city from being captured. Otherwise, we see wars of maneuver such as Sherman's campaign in northern Georgia and Grant attempting to outflank Lee in northern Virginia.

But the armies of the American Civil War are small compared to the armies that fight on the Western Front. Federal armies rarely top 100,000 troops, and Confederate Armies rarely exceed 70,000. Assume that two or three armies of this size, as well as two or three more far smaller armies for each side are contesting the ground stretching from the Mississippi to the Atlantic. Comparatively, the Entente and Germany field armies numbering in the multiple of millions in a combat theater about the size of Texas.

All of these factors combined to limit the ability of large armies to maneuver, and when they came into contact the volume and lethality of their firepower forced infantry to find the only cover they could - the earth itself.
 
2012-11-02 02:48:44 PM

EZ Writer: There are people that who study history.

/Pronouns. How do they work?



Not always the way you think, apparently.
 
2012-11-02 02:49:16 PM
My grandfather was a WWI vet. He enlisted when the war broke out and came out at the end of the war a lieutenant. That was pretty much all the family knew, he didn't talk about it with anyone. Before he died he did talk with me. He told me of the boat trip from the US to France and how seasick everyone was on that steamer. He told me of the balloons that filled the air, so as to hamper aerial assault. He told me of the trenches, filthy, cold, and full of fear. He also told me of his last cavalry charge against the enemy lines and how his horse was blown from under him. The blast left him deaf in his right ear and left his mount suffering. He was forced to shoot his horse. He came home damaged, but never spoke of it, never complained. He was my hero.
 
2012-11-02 02:49:41 PM

Egoy3k: doczoidberg: WWI was the last time they'd be allowed to start a giant war just because of some petty disputes. The modern era had arrived; war had become too hellish for that shiat to fly anymore.

I agree with this statement but you would have hoped that the American Revolution would have given them a clue and that the American Civil war would have woken them all up the realities of a more 'modern' war.


They had clearer indications of what WWI would be like all their own: The Crimean war and the Boer war.

Plus, this guy's trench, while well constructed, is inaccurate in its lack of putrified body parts buried in the artillery bombardment of the previous spring's offensive.
 
2012-11-02 02:51:03 PM

way south: All2morrowsparTs: This text is now purple: doczoidberg: World War I was actually quite fascinating....
I don't get why it doesn't receive more attention.

Because a larger war occurred 18 years later, over the same issues. Except that war actually resolved things.

Actually some historians lump the two wars together as one great war due to this. I agree with their analysis.

I'd agree too, except on the resolution bit.

I think where WWI was horrific, WWII raised the bar and made almost everyone on the globe a participant. Then it finished with the most horrific revelation possible: "why yes, we can make things worse!" *nuke*

Once the shock wore off and nations got their footing, the Cold War came along and everyone changed sides to prepare for round 3.
I'd postpone the end of the world wars till the fall of the Berlin Wall.

/there are still some old Hatreds simmering tho.
/maybe we're just experiencing an intermission.


Highly likely.
-We are no longer a bi-polar world so the artificial balance imposed by the two competing spheres of influence is gone.
-The economic rise of the BRIC countries ensures strong competition for increasingly limited resources even if the current 1st world nations decrease their rate of consumption (unlikely)
-steady population growth means growing competition over the absolutely vital resources of food and water

Either world population growth stabilizes before we hit some point where we are physically unable to feed everyone (which will lead to significant economic challenges since every economic model in the world depends on constant growth...) or the increasingly limited resources vital to normal survival will lead to conflict.
 
2012-11-02 02:55:00 PM

All2morrowsparTs: Actually some historians lump the two wars together as one great war due to this. I agree with their analysis.


You could make the case that from 1914 to 1989 the world was having another Hundred Years War.
 
2012-11-02 02:55:49 PM

way south: Once the shock wore off and nations got their footing, the Cold War came along and everyone changed sides to prepare for round 3.
I'd postpone the end of the world wars till the fall of the Berlin Wall.

/there are still some old Hatreds simmering tho.
/maybe we're just experiencing an intermission.


Although contemporaneous, the Cold War was a different war than the European Wars from 1912-1945. It did, in part, occur due to the sudden power vacuum from the functional dissolution of Japan, Italy, France, and Germany, and the hobbling of the UK.

It also never really got going because everyone was tired from the previous 35 years, and weapons had gotten just a little too big.
 
2012-11-02 02:59:25 PM
Well it's far enough into the thread that a) I haven't checked to see if anyone else posted this already and b) no one will read it anyway, but...
This is hilariously obligatory. How did the war start?
 
2012-11-02 03:01:59 PM

doczoidberg: World War I was actually quite fascinating....
I don't get why it doesn't receive more attention.

 
The whole thing started because some guy, Archie Duke, got hungry and shot an ostrich.  Kind of hard to get interested in it with that kind of backstory. 
 
2012-11-02 03:06:10 PM

bugcrusher: I salute this this guy for drawing attention to the nasty clusterfark that this war was, illustrating with real trenches the cold and muddy conditions on the continent that those soldiers lived and died in. These were no all-volunteer armies, these were conscripted kids in their early 20's being ordered about by paper officers whose war college lessons and techniques were from the 19th century. WWI was the last to really employ cavalry, the first to use mechanization, and it changed the face of Europe, creating what we have today.


An increasingly unpayable debt based economy?
 
2012-11-02 03:06:38 PM

UNC_Samurai: The First World War tactically is different from the American Civil War for four reasons - three technological and one socio-geographical.

The first and most obvious is the introduction of self-contained ammunition. Load a clip with 5 bullets, fire until expended, then load a new one. Whereas a veteran Federal or Confederate regiment could put up a sustained volley of 3 rounds a minute for about ten minutes (assuming the unit was completely stationary) before needing more ammunition. A British or German Great War regiment can fire approximately 15 rounds per minute - and they can advance while firing.

The second, and also obvious, innovation is the machine gun. There is no reliable way for infantry in 1914-1918 to deal with a machine gun. You have to rely on accurate artillery (and that requires some means of communication, which still isn't available tactically) or bypass the strongpoint.

The third and often overlooked innovation was the introduction of reliable aerial reconnaissance. It becomes far easier for armies to locate an opposing force with machines that are only a decade away from the first powered flight. All these things feed into the fourth and most important difference:


These all existed in the Civil War. Hell, George Custer alone used repeating rifles (Spencer, 20 shots/min) and aerial reconnaissance (scouted via hot-air balloon).

The Gatling and Agar guns were used in the Civil War. None of them frequently, or well, but they existed. They were dealt with in the same ways, too -- by artillery or by sniper.
 
2012-11-02 03:11:28 PM

John Hopoate: What a WWI Tommy may look like



/hot like a cappucino


He has a cunning plan.

Goodbyeeee
 
2012-11-02 03:15:15 PM

This text is now purple: UNC_Samurai: The First World War tactically is different from the American Civil War for four reasons - three technological and one socio-geographical.

The first and most obvious is the introduction of self-contained ammunition. Load a clip with 5 bullets, fire until expended, then load a new one. Whereas a veteran Federal or Confederate regiment could put up a sustained volley of 3 rounds a minute for about ten minutes (assuming the unit was completely stationary) before needing more ammunition. A British or German Great War regiment can fire approximately 15 rounds per minute - and they can advance while firing.

The second, and also obvious, innovation is the machine gun. There is no reliable way for infantry in 1914-1918 to deal with a machine gun. You have to rely on accurate artillery (and that requires some means of communication, which still isn't available tactically) or bypass the strongpoint.

The third and often overlooked innovation was the introduction of reliable aerial reconnaissance. It becomes far easier for armies to locate an opposing force with machines that are only a decade away from the first powered flight. All these things feed into the fourth and most important difference:

These all existed in the Civil War. Hell, George Custer alone used repeating rifles (Spencer, 20 shots/min) and aerial reconnaissance (scouted via hot-air balloon).

The Gatling and Agar guns were used in the Civil War. None of them frequently, or well, but they existed. They were dealt with in the same ways, too -- by artillery or by sniper.


The difference, how ever, was availability. You really don't see the proliferation needed to accurately extrapolate the effects of widespread use until you hit the Industrial Revolution and Mass Production.
 
2012-11-02 03:17:49 PM

Stinger: Well it's far enough into the thread that a) I haven't checked to see if anyone else posted this already and b) no one will read it anyway, but...
This is hilariously obligatory. How did the war start?


I tried to find the scene where they show the relief map of the land Blackadder and Baldrick were captured fighting to retake and the scale is.... one. That was a nice commentary on how futile WWI must have felt.

/it's perfectly detailed
//look, there's a little worm
 
2012-11-02 03:18:23 PM
i.dailymail.co.uk
I'd frolic the hell out of that place.
 
2012-11-02 03:18:27 PM
What's sad is that this guy is doing more to help people experience history in 24 hours in his back yard than the History channel does all year.
 
2012-11-02 03:18:59 PM

drjekel_mrhyde: If I did that here in Chicago i would need a permit


Depends whether you declare war.
 
2012-11-02 03:23:48 PM
Studying history is lame. I study the future.
 
2012-11-02 03:24:20 PM

TeddyRooseveltsMustache: What's sad is that this guy is doing more to help people experience history in 24 hours in his back yard than the History channel does all year.


YOUR POST IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR AWESOME.
 
2012-11-02 03:25:49 PM

Modguy: The difference, how ever, was availability. You really don't see the proliferation needed to accurately extrapolate the effects of widespread use until you hit the Industrial Revolution and Mass Production.

 
Also, WWI pitted two opposing forces with the exact same technolgy available to them, as well having them essentially matched in terms of strength, and strategies.  There was nothing available in the offensive arsenal that could not be repelled by what was available in the defensive arsenal, and there was nothing so definitely effective defensively that it wiped out the capability to continue to launch offensive attacks.  And this held true for both sides. 
 
2012-11-02 03:26:08 PM

TeddyRooseveltsMustache: What's sad is that this guy is doing more to help people experience history in 24 hours in his back yard than the History channel does all year.


That's a bold statement.
 
2012-11-02 03:29:04 PM

TeddyRooseveltsMustache: What's sad is that this guy is doing more to help people experience history in 24 hours in his back yard than the History channel does all year.


Hey, you never know what is gonna walk in that door...
 
2012-11-02 03:34:31 PM

Endive Wombat: What an incredible waste of time and money


So is pretty much any museum (to people who don't care about whatever subjects are explored, that is).

The enormous dugout has been painstakingly recreated by an ex-history teacher in his back garden in Surrey, and the dedicated 55-year-old even spent 24 hours living in its confines with a team of volunteers as part of his efforts to experience life as a WWI soldier.

Andrew Robertshaw and 30 helpers spent a month shifting around 200 tonnes of earth to build the enormous three-room trench, which he hopes will teach people more about the horrific living conditions endured by British troops during the Great War.
 
2012-11-02 03:50:07 PM

Modguy: These all existed in the Civil War. Hell, George Custer alone used repeating rifles (Spencer, 20 shots/min) and aerial reconnaissance (scouted via hot-air balloon).

The Gatling and Agar guns were used in the Civil War. None of them frequently, or well, but they existed. They were dealt with in the same ways, too -- by artillery or by sniper.

The difference, how ever, was availability. You really don't see the proliferation needed to accurately extrapolate the effects of widespread use until you hit the Industrial Revolution and Mass Production.


The Industrial Revolution occurred from 1750-1850. ACW occurred from 1861-1865. It was an industrial-era war.

\That was why Sherman occupied himself by tearing up railroad tracks.
 
2012-11-02 03:54:24 PM
Meth lab.
 
2012-11-02 03:54:38 PM

This text is now purple: doczoidberg: World War I was actually quite fascinating....
I don't get why it doesn't receive more attention.

Because a larger war occurred 18 years later, over the same issues. Except that war actually resolved things.


Some of them, not all. Eastern Europe is still a mess, and don't let's look at the Middle East...
 
2012-11-02 03:54:50 PM

DickDarlington: Big Merl: He must not have a HOA...

apart from the occasional gated community HOA's don't exist in the UK


....yet


They have 'elf & safety. Some humourless weaselly little inspector will come around with a note from "the council" telling him the trenches are a hazard.
 
2012-11-02 03:58:26 PM

Honest Bender: Harry Freakstorm: The last WW I movie I didn't see, a biplane flew through an exploding dirigible.

I don't remember anything about the last movie I didn't see...


Maybe you should pay more attention when you're not watching.
 
2012-11-02 04:20:27 PM

Great_Milenko: doczoidberg: World War I was actually quite fascinating....
I don't get why it doesn't receive more attention.

Two reasons:

1) it was a horrible, horrible war. Death and destruction on a massive scale with little reward in the eventual "victory"

2) The US didn't dominate it.


3) Because COD never made a FPS based on WWI
 
2012-11-02 04:23:47 PM

This text is now purple: Modguy: These all existed in the Civil War. Hell, George Custer alone used repeating rifles (Spencer, 20 shots/min) and aerial reconnaissance (scouted via hot-air balloon).

The Gatling and Agar guns were used in the Civil War. None of them frequently, or well, but they existed. They were dealt with in the same ways, too -- by artillery or by sniper.

The difference, how ever, was availability. You really don't see the proliferation needed to accurately extrapolate the effects of widespread use until you hit the Industrial Revolution and Mass Production.

The Industrial Revolution occurred from 1750-1850. ACW occurred from 1861-1865. It was an industrial-era war.

\That was why Sherman occupied himself by tearing up railroad tracks.


The difference is that it wasn't until the Bessemer process in the advent of the Second Industrial Revolution that the changes in how war was fought did things get kicked into overdrive. When you can produce steel cheaply, and reliably, you're more able to mass produce significant amounts of things like Artillary, Heavy Industries, and the like. The Civil War had a lot of things that was a foreshadowing of WW1 would be like, especially near the end, but it was missing quite a few of the fudamental things that truly define modern war.
 
2012-11-02 04:31:10 PM

FizixJunkee: How can that guy afford a detached house and all that land in Surrey? That' s gotta be worth a fortune.

\moving to England
\\where homes are even more expensive than in SoCal
\\\good-bye Los Angeles, CA
\\\\hello, Guildford, Surrey!


Home of Top Gear, I believe. It might be fun to get some tickets to a show if you're a car person.
 
2012-11-02 04:32:45 PM
Impressive.

I guess he'll never be condemned to repeat history.
 
2012-11-02 04:35:05 PM

whidbey: Impressive.

I guess he'll never be condemned to repeat history.


Until the Alzheimer's kicks in, and he constructs a massive trench network every month.
 
2012-11-02 05:03:25 PM

ciberido: EZ Writer: There are people that who study history.

/Pronouns. How do they work?


Not always (URL: http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/who-versus-that.aspx) the way you think, apparently.


Wow, I'm unimpressed by Grammar Girl's knowledge. I was taught in school that "that" swings both ways, i.e., it was acceptable to use with both people and non-people. It's "which" that you must never use with people.
 
2012-11-02 05:14:02 PM
Somme people just don't know what to do with themselves. And if anything, it looks a little o Verdun.
 
2012-11-02 05:15:56 PM

Pawprint: ciberido: EZ Writer: There are people that who study history.

/Pronouns. How do they work?


Not always (URL: http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/who-versus-that.aspx) the way you think, apparently.

Wow, I'm unimpressed by Grammar Girl's knowledge. I was taught in school that "that" swings both ways, i.e., it was acceptable to use with both people and non-people. It's "which" that you must never use with people.


Which puts on the lotion or which gets the hose. You're right, doesn't have the same ring to it.
 
2012-11-02 05:25:50 PM
What a terrible farking war.
 
2012-11-02 05:28:04 PM

doczoidberg: World War I was actually quite fascinating....
I don't get why it doesn't receive more attention.


It got overshadowed by the sequel, since it was bigger in every way, and had a more satisfying ending (Hitler eating a bullet to avoid capture by the Russians and Hiroshima going up in a mushroom cloud were a lot more appealing to the audiences than everybody basically getting tired of it and sitting down to just call the whole thing off).

The Nazis made really good villains. Bent on world conquest, genocidal, really snappy uniforms, an iconic logo, obsession with advanced technology and occult lore. There is a reason they are a go-to movie villain. Who in World War I was anything approaching that telegenic?
 
2012-11-02 05:29:23 PM

Modguy: doczoidberg: World War I was actually quite fascinating....
I don't get why it doesn't receive more attention.

Because it was brutal and bloody as hell, is my guess, and widely regarded as the epitome of failure in regards to the chaining treaty thing. It was by and large a massive, unmitigated clusterfark that pretty much can be pointed to as shaping the a lot of how the world is today. Setting the stage for World War 2, the impetus of the League of Nations, fall of Tsarist Russia and rise of the Soviet Union etc etc. It was and is MASSIVELY important, but it doesn't have the sweeping mystique of WW2. No true grand armies sweeping the map (with the exception of the Eastern Front). It was just a massive hell hole that lasted too long, killed too many, and gained no body anything meaningful. It's something that the Europeans tried to desperately forget, because it farked up so much.


You're overlooking what has proven to be the biggest clusterfark of all resulting from WWI: the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the creation (thanks mainly to the British and French) of the modern patchwork of Middle Eastern states. The horrendous bloodshed going on over there now can nearly all be attributed to the selfish, short-sighted decisions of the victorious Allies a century ago.
 
2012-11-02 05:38:48 PM

Modguy: doczoidberg: World War I was actually quite fascinating....
I don't get why it doesn't receive more attention.

Because it was brutal and bloody as hell, is my guess, and widely regarded as the epitome of failure in regards to the chaining treaty thing. It was by and large a massive, unmitigated clusterfark that pretty much can be pointed to as shaping the a lot of how the world is today. Setting the stage for World War 2, the impetus of the League of Nations, fall of Tsarist Russia and rise of the Soviet Union etc etc. It was and is MASSIVELY important, but it doesn't have the sweeping mystique of WW2. No true grand armies sweeping the map (with the exception of the Eastern Front). It was just a massive hell hole that lasted too long, killed too many, and gained no body anything meaningful. It's something that the Europeans tried to desperately forget, because it farked up so much.


not to mention, WW1 was a strange in-between war in terms of strategy and technology. Horses were still important. guns were slow and not accurate. tanks were rough to use. clunky biplanes, slow blimps, and poorly aimed bombs.

WW2, in comparison, was full of equipment that, to this day, holds in peoples memory. P51, ME109, Shermans, Tigers, Panzers, long range bombers, fully automatic weapons, V rockets, submarines, etc. All much "sexier" equipment, and some of which is considered the peak of design.

To war fans, equipment is a big deal.
 
2012-11-02 05:47:48 PM

Mouser: Modguy: doczoidberg: World War I was actually quite fascinating....
I don't get why it doesn't receive more attention.

Because it was brutal and bloody as hell, is my guess, and widely regarded as the epitome of failure in regards to the chaining treaty thing. It was by and large a massive, unmitigated clusterfark that pretty much can be pointed to as shaping the a lot of how the world is today. Setting the stage for World War 2, the impetus of the League of Nations, fall of Tsarist Russia and rise of the Soviet Union etc etc. It was and is MASSIVELY important, but it doesn't have the sweeping mystique of WW2. No true grand armies sweeping the map (with the exception of the Eastern Front). It was just a massive hell hole that lasted too long, killed too many, and gained no body anything meaningful. It's something that the Europeans tried to desperately forget, because it farked up so much.

You're overlooking what has proven to be the biggest clusterfark of all resulting from WWI: the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the creation (thanks mainly to the British and French) of the modern patchwork of Middle Eastern states. The horrendous bloodshed going on over there now can nearly all be attributed to the selfish, short-sighted decisions of the victorious Allies a century ago.


Overlook? Naw, that was an implied part of the Et Cetera. I had considered covering that particular point, but I had felt I had made enough of a point. You're entirely right on the rest though; so many problems in the Middle East (fark, rest of the world too) has its roots in colonialism, arbitrary lines on a map, and arrogance on the part of the powers that be of the time.
 
2012-11-02 05:51:03 PM

LemSkroob: Modguy: doczoidberg: World War I was actually quite fascinating....
I don't get why it doesn't receive more attention.

Because it was brutal and bloody as hell, is my guess, and widely regarded as the epitome of failure in regards to the chaining treaty thing. It was by and large a massive, unmitigated clusterfark that pretty much can be pointed to as shaping the a lot of how the world is today. Setting the stage for World War 2, the impetus of the League of Nations, fall of Tsarist Russia and rise of the Soviet Union etc etc. It was and is MASSIVELY important, but it doesn't have the sweeping mystique of WW2. No true grand armies sweeping the map (with the exception of the Eastern Front). It was just a massive hell hole that lasted too long, killed too many, and gained no body anything meaningful. It's something that the Europeans tried to desperately forget, because it farked up so much.

not to mention, WW1 was a strange in-between war in terms of strategy and technology. Horses were still important. guns were slow and not accurate. tanks were rough to use. clunky biplanes, slow blimps, and poorly aimed bombs.

WW2, in comparison, was full of equipment that, to this day, holds in peoples memory. P51, ME109, Shermans, Tigers, Panzers, long range bombers, fully automatic weapons, V rockets, submarines, etc. All much "sexier" equipment, and some of which is considered the peak of design.

To war fans, equipment is a big deal.


Another good point. In my original paragraph, it's a simple matter of replacing "mystique" with "sexiness". I had opted for mystique because calling machines of war with horrifying levels of death and mayhem creeped me the hell out. And yeah, WW1 was a shambling monstrosity that marks the end of one era and way of waging war, and the start of a new one,
 
2012-11-02 05:55:31 PM

Endive Wombat: What an incredible waste of time and money


i398.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-02 06:02:23 PM
Trench warfare in WW1's Western Front was incredibly evil and stupid. They'd draft you, make you live in a muddy ditch with shells coming down all around you, then make you run straight at the enemy's machine guns across a field of barbed wire and broken corpses -- or they'd kill you for insubordination and desertion. Then there was poison gas to cover the stench of the rotting dead and the gangrenous living. Fun times, that.

The Eastern Front I know less about but now I'm curious. It looks like yet another kind of massive clusterfark.. 

There should have been a revolution about that in Great Britain but all the healthy young men were too busy in France dying by hundreds of thousands. Once they heard what life was like in the field, why they didn't revolt before they were drafted is beyond me: maybe something in the water?
 
2012-11-02 06:41:55 PM

Mouser: The horrendous bloodshed going on over there now can nearly all be attributed to the selfish, short-sighted decisions of the victorious Allies a century ago.


That explains the last 100 years. What about the 2400 years of ceaseless bloodshed that preceded it?
 
2012-11-02 07:06:22 PM

Mentat: My trenchfoot is historically accurate.


My roomie at Fort Gordon actually got a confirmed case of trenchfoot from partying in the rain in Savannah, GA over St Patrick's Day weekend. Her feet were all red and swole up like footballs. She said as soon as word got out that it was trenchfoot, a crowd of Army medicos suddenly packed the room to have a look and it was about 30 minutes before they actually got down to treating her.

/Other than that, she said Savannah was a blast.
 
2012-11-02 08:40:59 PM

This text is now purple: Mouser: The horrendous bloodshed going on over there now can nearly all be attributed to the selfish, short-sighted decisions of the victorious Allies a century ago.

That explains the last 100 years. What about the 2400 years of ceaseless bloodshed that preceded it?


The German bombing of Pearl Harbor
 
2012-11-02 09:05:43 PM
i156.photobucket.com

This book and Range 208 at Grafenwoehr Training Germany center were enough trench experience for me.
 
2012-11-02 09:21:15 PM

LemSkroob: To war fans, equipment is a big deal.


As a war fan I'd say its the relationship of equipment to the nature of the fight.
WWII had clearly defined roles and ready made heroes.
WWI was nothing but brutality, confusion and misery.

Everyone wants to be reminded about glorious days of valor and victory.
Few want to remember the pain and suffering of a protracted stalemate.

/Many of the rifles used early in WWII are of similar to what they had in WWI.
/If you want a taste of WWI or the WWII eastern front, drop $100 on a fifty plus year old Mosin Nagant .
/Beautiful Russian rifle and cheap to shoot, but after a few days of dragging it around you'll be praying for an AR.
/Compare it with an 03 springfield or SMLE, where you'll have to sign over six times as much for a similar vintage.
 
2012-11-02 10:36:24 PM
That's pretty cool, but....... ..

i486.photobucket.com
i486.photobucket.com
i486.photobucket.com
i486.photobucket.com
Baldasare Forestiere remains unimpressed. Even though he's dead.
 
2012-11-02 10:49:30 PM
Whoa. Andrew Robertshaw doesn't study history; history studies him.
 
2012-11-03 12:59:39 AM

doczoidberg: World War I was actually quite fascinating....
I don't get why it doesn't receive more attention.


I have always found it very difficult for find well written books on the war. The civil war has great writers, and so does WW II, but the Great War, not so much.

I have always wanted to read about the Italian front, because apparently that is where the great German tank generals of WW I learned their craft, but what little I have found is dry and boring.

That said, this guys trench in awesome!
 
2012-11-03 02:30:07 AM

doczoidberg: World War I was actually quite fascinating....
I don't get why it doesn't receive more attention.


Its one of those rare cases where the original, as big as it was, was overshadowed by the sequel, which really blew people away.

"Euro Trek II: The Wrath of Adolph" really never has been surpassed by any of the later ones, both in terms of script and cast. I've always thought it was the villain who really made these things work on so many levels.
 
2012-11-03 10:43:10 AM
OSHA would not be amused.
 
2012-11-03 01:06:50 PM

MisterRonbo: doczoidberg: World War I was actually quite fascinating....
I don't get why it doesn't receive more attention.

Its one of those rare cases where the original, as big as it was, was overshadowed by the sequel, which really blew people away.

"Euro Trek II: The Wrath of Adolph" really never has been surpassed by any of the later ones, both in terms of script and cast. I've always thought it was the villain who really made these things work on so many levels.


I agree, though I felt the whole subplot with the Benito character in TWoA was redundant.
 
2012-11-03 02:02:40 PM

This text is now purple: Mouser: The horrendous bloodshed going on over there now can nearly all be attributed to the selfish, short-sighted decisions of the victorious Allies a century ago.

That explains the last 100 years. What about the 2400 years of ceaseless bloodshed that preceded it?


The West didn't invent tribal warfare. We did, however, invent the machine gun.
 
Displayed 148 of 148 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report