The Sinking of the RMS Titanic and other ships.

[jason_c]

Mayerling,

Just to point out W.R. Hearst was primarily of Scots/Irish descent. I doubt his opposition to the war was because of German ancestry. Theres so much myth making about Hearst that I had to point this small fact out. I doubt sentimental feelings of genealogy would have had an affect on him.

[Adam Went]

Fleetwood:

Just back on the subject of propaganda briefly, I agree with what you're saying - to win a war you need a lot of things to go right for you. You need a lot of skill and a lot of luck as well. The Germans, no doubt, had the best technology for warfare, but by the time they had developed it properly, they had reached a stage of the war where there was really no coming back. A combination of acts which resulted in them cutting off their own noses to spite their own faces contributed to their losing WWII.

That being said, their propaganda machine was a vast one, and Josef Goebbels, despite being one of the most vicious, nasty men within the Reich knew what he was doing to brainwash the people - after all, he was Propaganda Minister and had been with Hitler virtually from the start.

Propaganda has of course affected some of the ships we've discussed here, first the German warning about the sinking of vessels such as the Lusitania which was taken by many to be mere scare mongering propaganda, to the flip side of that which was the propaganda spread by the Allies after the Lusitania went down, especially with around 120 American casualties IIRC, with the Americans not yet in the war - "Avenge The Lusitania!" screamed one poster post-sinking, with a view of the sinking Lusitania with dead innocents in the water.

Anyway, apologies if slightly off topic...

Cheers,
Adam.

[Errata]

Not to mention a lack of boots and guns. Bizarrely, many Russian soldiers were running around at the front with no guns or boots on their feet.

Somehow the train thing seems more... tragic in a black humor kind of way. I mean, the country was desperately poor and clearly it's populace was suffering. They were starving, they were ill equipped, they were poorly if at all educated, much as one would expect from isolated communities in a terrible climate. But the train tracks? That's just piss poor planning. I bet the first meeting that came up in, everyone just looked at the minister of railroads as he hung his head in shame.

And then they fixed it just in time to be invaded by Germany. I mean, there has to be some minor demon of perverse timing and rotten luck just laughing his a$$ off at that.

[Errata]

Mayerling,

Just to point out W.R. Hearst was primarily of Scots/Irish descent. I doubt his opposition to the war was because of German ancestry. Theres so much myth making about Hearst that I had to point this small fact out. I doubt sentimental feelings of genealogy would have had an affect on him.

As I recall, he violently detested the British. The whole empire thing, and what he perceived (and perhaps rightly) as the subjugation of nations under the British, creating entire countries of second class citizens with no self governance. He didn't think we should help them, and he thought the parceling out of territory under the League of Nations was an abomination of democratic ideals.

He was pretty keen on war against Germany in WWII. I think he was probably hard put not to spit in Hitler's face. That and he knew nothing cures a Depression like a technologically advanced war. But his papers' coverage of the Holocaust was singular. As in, it wasn't so much appearing in other newspapers at all. He advocated a dedicated effort to rescue Jews in German occupied countries, and was one of the first to advocate for a Jewish state. Not that he liked Jews all that much, but apparently he was a sucker for an underdog.

And that exhausts my knowledge of WR Hearst and foreign policy. Never thought that history paper would ever come in handy.

[Mayerling]

As I recall, he violently detested the British. The whole empire thing, and what he perceived (and perhaps rightly) as the subjugation of nations under the British, creating entire countries of second class citizens with no self governance. He didn't think we should help them, and he thought the parceling out of territory under the League of Nations was an abomination of democratic ideals.

He was pretty keen on war against Germany in WWII. I think he was probably hard put not to spit in Hitler's face. That and he knew nothing cures a Depression like a technologically advanced war. But his papers' coverage of the Holocaust was singular. As in, it wasn't so much appearing in other newspapers at all. He advocated a dedicated effort to rescue Jews in German occupied countries, and was one of the first to advocate for a Jewish state. Not that he liked Jews all that much, but apparently he was a sucker for an underdog.

And that exhausts my knowledge of WR Hearst and foreign policy. Never thought that history paper would ever come in handy.

Hi Jason and Errata,

Hearst is a fascinating figure and everytime I see CITIZEN KANE I can feel a little pity for him and Marion Davies. Rosebud was a code word for a private matter between them that Herman Mankiewicz was aware of, and more than anything else infuriated W. R. Welles was unaware (or apparently unaware) of it.

Hearst was not intoxicated by a love for Jews, but respected the bulk of them as hard working and good citizens. When he met Hitler before the war, Hearst spoke up for them and Hitler rapidly lost interest in their conversation.

He did distrust the British Empire and its goals. This did not prevent him from hiring Winston Churchill to write articles for his publications. But he tried to make the coverage of the war even handed. This led to one really crazy situation. In 1914 one of the newest British dreadnoughts, the "Audacious", hit a mine and sank. It had never seen any service. The Admiralty put a curtain of silence down on the disaster (fortunately no lives were lost) and did not admit the incident until 1918. But the White Star liner Olympic had been near the scene, and the sinking was photographed by hundreds of Americans returning to the U.S. Several pictures ended up in Hearst's newspapers with accounts of the disaster - at the same time the British denied it happened.

Jeff

[Mayerling]

I think you hit on a few things there, Jeff.

Not only were the Russians rivals, they were seen as barbarians here.

There was a great deal of respect for the Germans on the other hand for what they had achieved in areas such as science, philosophy, psychology, music etc.

It was unthinkable in many quarters that the British should fight with the Russians against the Germans.

And, we had a nice little set-up with the French which safeguarded our position.

It wasn't a foregone conclusion, though. Right up to the eve of the war the Liberal government was split on the question of whether or not we should enter the war, with some ministers resigning. It proved to be the most costly mistake in British history, and one which set the scene for the Americans and Russians coming to the fore (a scenario predicted by more than one German intellectual, by the way, in the event of a European war).

Hi Fleetwood,

You are absolutely right in saying it was one of the costliest mistakes in English history, but the whole war was a mistake. In 1903 Serbia had a palace coup that was extremely bloody. King Alexander and his wife Queen Draga, and her two brothers, were butchered in the royal palace by a secret group who favored the rival royal house (and replaced Alexander with King Peter - the king in 1914. Alexander, like his father King Milan, cooperated with the Austro-Hungaria Empire, and this was why the military decided to get rid of him. But it was such a bloody business the Serbs were ostracized by most of Europe (including France and England) on the diplomatic front. Had Count Bernstorff, the Austrian foreign minister, published the results of the report on the assassinations of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Countess Sofie Chotek, revealing the connection of Prinzip and his co-assassins with an underground group connected to the same militay people as the ones who killed Alexander and Draga the Serbs would have been isolated again (except for Russia). It is possible a limited war would have resulted.

Jeff

[jason_c]

As I recall, he violently detested the British. The whole empire thing, and what he perceived (and perhaps rightly) as the subjugation of nations under the British, creating entire countries of second class citizens with no self governance. He didn't think we should help them, and he thought the parceling out of territory under the League of Nations was an abomination of democratic ideals.

He was pretty keen on war against Germany in WWII. I think he was probably hard put not to spit in Hitler's face. That and he knew nothing cures a Depression like a technologically advanced war. But his papers' coverage of the Holocaust was singular. As in, it wasn't so much appearing in other newspapers at all. He advocated a dedicated effort to rescue Jews in German occupied countries, and was one of the first to advocate for a Jewish state. Not that he liked Jews all that much, but apparently he was a sucker for an underdog.

And that exhausts my knowledge of WR Hearst and foreign policy. Never thought that history paper would ever come in handy.

Very true about him hating the British.

The largest myth over Hearst was his supposed telegram to a photographer he had sent to Cuba. This photographer had been sent to cover the Cuban uprising(an uprising Hearst supported) against the Spanish. When the reporter telegraphed Hearst saying that he couldnt find an uprising Hearst sent back a telegram saying "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war."

The above story is often quoted. However,it almost certainly didnt happen. I certainly wouldnt feel too sorry for Hearst but his influence has probably been overestimated by his enemies.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Fleetwood:

Just back on the subject of propaganda briefly, I agree with what you're saying - to win a war you need a lot of things to go right for you. You need a lot of skill and a lot of luck as well. The Germans, no doubt, had the best technology for warfare, but by the time they had developed it properly, they had reached a stage of the war where there was really no coming back. A combination of acts which resulted in them cutting off their own noses to spite their own faces contributed to their losing WWII.

Adam,

History has been rewritten on WW2. The German military machine wasn't as formidable as that which is supposed today. For example, the French had the better technology of the two. The problem for France is that when they built the Maginot line, it was a purely defensive mechanism and that put them in the wrong frame of mind for a war. The fact that the French capitulated within 6 weeks is an indictment of the collective mental state of France, e.g. didn't have the stomach for it and defensive minded, rather than a statement of the quality of the German Army. The French surrended in droves without a shot being fired; the Germans were astonished.

That being said, their propaganda machine was a vast one, and Josef Goebbels, despite being one of the most vicious, nasty men within the Reich knew what he was doing to brainwash the people - after all, he was Propaganda Minister and had been with Hitler virtually from the start.

It has been known for centuries that you simply need to appeal to fear and pride to have the public on side. Look at the US incursion into Nicaragua in 1986: the public weren't onside, a quick spot of turning a rag-tag outfit such as the Sandanistas into the Mongol Hordes and then you have the public onside.

The point is that indoctrinating your own people is a given and is as simple as boiling eggs. You have to have the right people onside from other countries and the Germans served only to alienate a country that could turn the course of any war.

It is often said that the Russians took the brunt of the German Army. It is less well known that the Americans supplied the Russians with armoured vehicles and food to keep the Russian Army going - an army doesn't march on an empty stomach. Without shipments of American goods the Russian Army would have been in dire straits.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Somehow the train thing seems more... tragic in a black humor kind of way. I mean, the country was desperately poor and clearly it's populace was suffering. They were starving, they were ill equipped, they were poorly if at all educated, much as one would expect from isolated communities in a terrible climate. But the train tracks? That's just piss poor planning. I bet the first meeting that came up in, everyone just looked at the minister of railroads as he hung his head in shame.

And then they fixed it just in time to be invaded by Germany. I mean, there has to be some minor demon of perverse timing and rotten luck just laughing his a$$ off at that.

The Russians had embarked on a period of unprecedented economic growth and modernisation pre WW1, and their growth outstripped that of the other belligerent nations (I suppose we have to take into account the starting point, though).

And, I'm sure the Russians invaded the Germans.

But, yes, in general terms the Russians weren't up to the task; a point not lost on Trotsky who made sure the Russians/Blosheviks had an altogether different war mentality in the future: "take a step back and you will definitely be shot by your own; take a step forward and you may survive" (or words to that effect).

WW1 was a touch bizarre as you had cavalry charges and the like against modern technology. The French, Russians and Germans all made a habit of charging head first into machine gun fire not realising this was no longer the 19th century, and lost huge swathes of men in the process. And, the Americans repeated the mistake instead of learning from the British and French experience - they had their reasons for doing so, such as maintaining an independent army and the wider goal of becoming an equal among the main powers.

The whole thing was a farce from start to finish, which isn't intended to belittle the enormous loss of life.

One of the more interesting fronts was the Austrian/Italian front which made the Western Front look like a merry stroll in the park. They fought in the Alps and during retreats in the dark loads of 'em just fell off the edge of cliffs and the like to their deaths.

Dear god. Makes you wonder about the human mind.

[louisa]

You should have said "It makes me wonder about the MALE human mind".

It's men that tend to create wars.

[Fleetwood Mac]

As I recall, he violently detested the British. The whole empire thing, and what he perceived (and perhaps rightly) as the subjugation of nations under the British, creating entire countries of second class citizens with no self governance. He didn't think we should help them, and he thought the parceling out of territory under the League of Nations was an abomination of democratic ideals.

The whole point of the League of Nations, an American idea, was to prevent another WW1. The Americans, the one's who mattered, felt WW1 had been caused by secret and binding pacts; and they concluded that an international body charged with resolving disputes among nations would resolve the issue. Not a bad idea at all.

On the question of the British Empire:

There is no doubt that there were positives, although by-products admittedly, e.g. a language, banking system, law system etc. Foreign policy is dominated by self-interest of course - in any given nation. There were, however, just as there are today with the American Empire (that term is open to debate, granted), competing interests driving the empire: economic interests, liberal values, monarchy etc.

By and large the British Empire was one of trade orchestrated by the merchant classes. The government latched onto it further down the line.

By WW1 it was really about a battle for ideas. Spreading English ideas of tolerance (you could dispute that, I suppose), free trade, centre ground politics and the like at the expense of continental European ideas, particularly Militarism.

If you look at US foreign policy today, you will see a carbon copy of the British Empire: for the Pax Britannica see the playing of opposing sides in the Middle East; for Britain's desire to spread English values see the Americans desire to spread American values; for the English view of themselves as masters of the seas and peace loving at home see the American view of themselves as the world's governor yet industrious home loving people etc.

Which is why the Americans will always have our support. Not primarily because of economic interests; primarily because of all the countries capable of being a superpower the US view of the world is closest to ours, which means ultimately we stand to gain something from it in a way we wouldn't with the Chinese or Russians, or even the Germans or French for that matter.

[Fleetwood Mac]

You should have said "It makes me wonder about the MALE human mind".

It's men that tend to create wars.

That's an interesting point, and I wonder what de Beauvoir would say on this matter.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Fleetwood,

You are absolutely right in saying it was one of the costliest mistakes in English history, but the whole war was a mistake. In 1903 Serbia had a palace coup that was extremely bloody. King Alexander and his wife Queen Draga, and her two brothers, were butchered in the royal palace by a secret group who favored the rival royal house (and replaced Alexander with King Peter - the king in 1914. Alexander, like his father King Milan, cooperated with the Austro-Hungaria Empire, and this was why the military decided to get rid of him. But it was such a bloody business the Serbs were ostracized by most of Europe (including France and England) on the diplomatic front. Had Count Bernstorff, the Austrian foreign minister, published the results of the report on the assassinations of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Countess Sofie Chotek, revealing the connection of Prinzip and his co-assassins with an underground group connected to the same militay people as the ones who killed Alexander and Draga the Serbs would have been isolated again (except for Russia). It is possible a limited war would have resulted.

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

On the Serbian issue: I've just pent a few weeks in Croatia, Slovenia, Italy and the Croats view of their history was the funniest thing I've read in years. They simply blamed everything on the Serbs and the whole thing is littered with: "the brave, freedom loving Croats" and the "murderous, fascist Serbs". I suppose you have to have a certain sense of humour, but the idea that one people can be so good and the other so bad, and someone in a position of authority is prepared to put that into print, was a comedy gem for me.

The Serbs were good mates with the Russians, which was never going be a point of friendship with the British.

Localised war? the Germans were chomping at the bit as the 'Land in the Middle' and that peculiarly German romanticism drawn from Greek Tragedy and bordering on self-destruction. So, they pressed the Austrians knowing full well the Russians would back the Serbs, and the French would back the Russians (financial ties and a fear of Germany). The only real question was this: would it remain a contintental European war? The British were caught between a rock and a hard place: risk German control of Europe, with the Northern French coast being the key, or gamble with the very foundations of the Empire itself.

The wrong choice was made on our part, particularly as German war aims in 1914 amounted to a continental European customs union ran by the Germans, which is pretty much what they have today. We could have lived with that, and in fact the Germans envisaged a situation where they ran Europe and we ran the seas. Then again, I suppose the Pax Britannica was concerned with maintaining a balance in contintental Europe and it was that which lead to a period of unprecedented period of peace, growth and globalism: it worked in the past but not this time.

Anyway, our time was up regardless. Other countries were coming on the scene matching our Protestant work ethic, our aggression, our system of doing things: only bigger and hungrier. WW1 merely accelerated the fall of the British Empire.

[Mayerling]

Hi Jeff,

On the Serbian issue: I've just pent a few weeks in Croatia, Slovenia, Italy and the Croats view of their history was the funniest thing I've read in years. They simply blamed everything on the Serbs and the whole thing is littered with: "the brave, freedom loving Croats" and the "murderous, fascist Serbs". I suppose you have to have a certain sense of humour, but the idea that one people can be so good and the other so bad, and someone in a position of authority is prepared to put that into print, was a comedy gem for me.

The Serbs were good mates with the Russians, which was never going be a point of friendship with the British.

Localised war? the Germans were chomping at the bit as the 'Land in the Middle' and that peculiarly German romanticism drawn from Greek Tragedy and bordering on self-destruction. So, they pressed the Austrians knowing full well the Russians would back the Serbs, and the French would back the Russians (financial ties and a fear of Germany). The only real question was this: would it remain a contintental European war? The British were caught between a rock and a hard place: risk German control of Europe, with the Northern French coast being the key, or gamble with the very foundations of the Empire itself.

The wrong choice was made on our part, particularly as German war aims in 1914 amounted to a continental European customs union ran by the Germans, which is pretty much what they have today. We could have lived with that, and in fact the Germans envisaged a situation where they ran Europe and we ran the seas. Then again, I suppose the Pax Britannica was concerned with maintaining a balance in contintental Europe and it was that which lead to a period of unprecedented period of peace, growth and globalism: it worked in the past but not this time.

Anyway, our time was up regardless. Other countries were coming on the scene matching our Protestant work ethic, our aggression, our system of doing things: only bigger and hungrier. WW1 merely accelerated the fall of the British Empire.

Hi Fleetwood,

Actually I think the Croats calling the Serbs Fascistic is the pot calling the kettle black. Serbs may not have clean hands in the treatment of their neighbors (they did try under their King Alexander of Yugoslavia to force their view on all the neighbors they had inherited), but the Croats collaborated with Hitler very willingly on the Final Solution. I have had mixed feelings about the re-emergence of Croatia ever since the 1980s.


What I should have said was that it might have been possible to have put off the 1914-1918 Armaggedon in Europe for at least twenty or thirty years. It had been barely avoided from 1878-1914 on several occasions. Moreover some French politicians (Joseph Caillaux, for example) were beginning to quetion the war of revenge idea. Jules Ferry had done so (with some success) in the 1880s, and Caillaux (who was an expert on the economy) realized that Wilhelmine Germany was the center of the continent's economic strength, and that France could fit in as a slightly junior partner. Unfortunately too many political loudmouths wanted revenge (why? - France grabbed the lost territories under Louis XIV from the Holy Roman Empire) and Caillaux had to leave office in 1914 to help his wife's murder trial (for shooting Caillaux's enemy, Gaston Calmette - editor of Le Figaro - in his office after he published embarrassing private correspondence). But while Prime Minister in 1912 Caillaux demonstrated that one could arrive with some degree of satisfaction with the Germans in the second Moroccan Crisis - he gave into to them on some points. A limited Austrian - Russian war over Serbia might have occurred. But to be fair you needed statesmen of the Disraeli, Bismarck, Salisbury, Joe Chamberlain stamp to do so. Instead you had adequate leaders at best (Asquith, Grey, young Winston Churchill - not yet at his best but learning, Poincare) and idiots in the main spots (Bernstorff, Bethman-Hollveg, whoever was Prime Minister in Russia - Isvolski?).

Jeff

[Mayerling]

Hello again Fleetwood,

I forgot to discuss your comment on the idiotic mountain campaigns (the 12 battles of the Isonzo) between Austria and Italy. Austria's value as a military partner to Germany was really limited to protecting (supposedly) Germany's back from Russia's "Steamroller" (they thought. In fact, Austria had to be bailed out several times in the war by German when Germany desperately could have used the men on the western front. Serbia's General Putnik managed to mangled Austria's army for nearly a year until a German force was sent n 1915 (Bulgaria was of some help to Germany there). The Italian front was a stalemate until the German's won a surprising vctory at Caporetto in 1917. As for the Russians, their own idiotic General staff (ahh, for the great days of Sumkohlnikoff, Sampsonov, and Rennenkampf) did marvels. Still they enabled Germany to create the best military team of the war - Ludendorff and Von Hindenburg - at Tannenburg. But in 1916 Russia finally sent a good commander tothe front -Alexei Brusilov - who almost defeated Austria-Hungary. Roumania's opportunistic declaration of war as a Russian ally wrecked Brusilov's plan (and enabled Erick Von Falkenheim to partly repair his reputation by conquering Roumania).

I suppose that Germany was just stuck with this stupid alliance (although a sacrifice of Austria-Hungary to be shared by Hungary, Russia, and Italy might have worked after 1866). My guess is that Bismarck couldn't do it because of the Catholic German states led by Bavaria (connected to Austria by the Hapsburg - Wittlesbach relationship). It is instructive that in 1900 Austria's military was the leader in only one area -they had the most attractive braided uniforms in Europe (good for Strauss and Lehar operettas I guess).

Horse cavaly still had a powerful role after 1918. The Polish cavalry saved Warsaw in 1921. which was why it still was used in 1939.

Jeff
'