Who Are the Real Heroes?

[David Floyd]

Boris,

If the German government chose to feed the soldiers instead of the civilians, that is hardly Britain's problem. If Germany had fed the civilians instead, then the German army would have been defeated faster, the war would end sooner and less Britons (and, probably, Germans) would die. I wager that is the outcome Britain would have liked to see.

Yes, yes, but the British knew this wasn't going to happen, and they blockaded Germany knowing full well that civilians were going to die.

I'll grant you, though, it isn't Britain's fault that the Germans chose to feed soldiers first, but it is Britain's fault in that they had a moral alternative.

That was irrelevant to my argument, so why would I mention it? As I said, I don't care how many warnings Germany gave--sinking an unarmed passenger liner is extremely immoral.

I agree, but my point was that when both sides are acting immorally, one side shouldn't act shocked and outraged at the actions of the other.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by David Floyd


And this only goes to show why military alliances and treaties are wrong - they drew Great Britain into a war it had no business fighting. The guarantee to Belgium was wrong, so hence British involvement was wrong.

Yeah . . . I'm not sure why in the 1830's when Belgium emerged as a nation, that she was given this special status. Does anyone know how this came about in the first place?

But I still say that Germany was asking for a war against the Allies. She became an agressor once all the blunderings and miscommunications caused the war to erupt.

But I will say this -- the terms that ended World War I were idiotically one-sided against Germany and way too harsh and demeaning for any self-respecting country.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MrFun
David and Boris:

World War I erupted as a result of blundering and miscommunication between several countries, two of which were Germany and Austria-Hungary. I'm referring to the unfolding events after the assassination in Sarajevo.

You're underestimating the powers of the time. The war wasn't so much a fault of blunders as it was part of each nation making calculated decisions to engage in a war. Nobody, however, foresaw the lengths to which the war would go, which is hardly their fault. 19th century geopolitics did not mesh well with 20th century warfare.

Germany wasn't the chief catalyst for the war, and I'd assign her blame to be comparable with that of France and England. The two biggest culprits were Russia and Austria-Hungary, and I'd also give the edge to Russia.

Great Britain was binded to defend Belgium's neutrality against any invaders. That is where their official position stood, and Imperial Germany knew and also promised in the past, to respect Belgium's neutrality status. Yet, with this knowledge, Germany went ahead to use Belgium as a route to northern France.

Great Britain was "binded" by no such thing, as the notion of being bound by an alliance wasn't what it is today. Italy, after all, jumped from the Central Powers right away, because it was in her best interest not to have to face a Mediterranean assault on her coastline. Britain only rose to defend Belgium because she felt it was in her best interest to knock Germany down a few pegs, as Germany was her chief economic and military rival.

Had Germany and Britain been allied, which had been a distinct possibility at one point, I've little doubt Britain would have let them march all over the low lands to get at France.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
You're underestimating the powers of the time. The war wasn't so much a fault of blunders as it was part of each nation making calculated decisions to engage in a war. Nobody, however, foresaw the lengths to which the war would go, which is hardly their fault. 19th century geopolitics did not mesh well with 20th century warfare.

Germany wasn't the chief catalyst for the war, and I'd assign her blame to be comparable with that of France and England. The two biggest culprits were Russia and Austria-Hungary, and I'd also give the edge to Russia.

Great Britain was "binded" by no such thing, as the notion of being bound by an alliance wasn't what it is today. Italy, after all, jumped from the Central Powers right away, because it was in her best interest not to have to face a Mediterranean assault on her coastline. Britain only rose to defend Belgium because she felt it was in her best interest to knock Germany down a few pegs, as Germany was her chief economic and military rival.

Had Germany and Britain been allied, which had been a distinct possibility at one point, I've little doubt Britain would have let them march all over the low lands to get at France.

So then why would Great Britain agree to Belgium's particular status in the 1830's?

And I am not placing Germany as the sole fault of World War I -- read my last post.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Yes, yes, but the British knew this wasn't going to happen, and they blockaded Germany knowing full well that civilians were going to die.

Then shame on the Germans for meeting such low expectations!

I'll grant you, though, it isn't Britain's fault that the Germans chose to feed soldiers first, but it is Britain's fault in that they had a moral alternative.

The chief object in war is to win with as few as casualties as possible to your civilians and soldiers. Britain believed the blockade was a way of ensuring a faster defeat of Germany while preserving British lives, and that it wouldn't necessarily kill Germans, except if the German government chose to feed its army before its people. I don't think they should have had moral qualms about it, because they weren't actually forcing the German people to starve. Yes, it's a nut-grabbing tactic, but that's war for you.

I agree, but my point was that when both sides are acting immorally, one side shouldn't act shocked and outraged at the actions of the other.

Well, as I've probably made clear by my thoughts on who is most responsible for the war, I would agree that neither side had any ultimate moral high ground in the war. However, I don't think that should prevent me from being able to express moral outrage over specific acts of barbarity, no matter which side committed them.

Again, I don't believe two wrongs make a right.

[David Floyd]

So then why would Great Britain agree to Belgium's particular status in the 1830's?

I think the answer to that probably involves politics and appearances.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MrFun
So then why would Great Britain agree to Belgium's particular status in the 1830's?

Chiefly, I suspect, as a means of keeping a leg up on France. But in the world of realpolitik, such a status would have had little real meaning in 1914. Had it been in GB's best interest to let Germany invade Belgium with impunity, they would have done so. At the time, however, it was in their perceived best interest to let be the instigation of a war.

And I am not placing Germany as the sole fault of World War I -- read my last post.

By claiming Germany was the aggressor against Britain, that is de facto saying they are more at fault, which was what I am arguing. I don't believe Germany was an aggressor against Britain, at least not any more so than Britain was an aggressor against Germany.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

"Interesting" thread.

The real heroes are those who act in such a way to maintain a balance between their own self-interest and the best interests of those around them - the society in which they exist. True heroes can put aside self-interest in an emergency, and don't rely solely on their favourite dogma to answer moral questions.

In other words, banana.

[SlowwHand]

In other words, David and MrFun.

[SlowwHand]

Huh?

[orange]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Orange:

I suggest reading David Ramsay's Lusitania: Saga & Myth. It is an excellent and quite objective look at the disaster, one that wades through the propaganda on all sides.

The Lusitania had not been fitted with guns at the point of its sinking, so stipulating that it was perhaps slated to be so at some point is silly as a justification for sinking it.

Never said that at all. Infact I specifically avoided making such an argument, because I know it's utter crap to believe otherwise.

And there isn't any evidence she was carrying munitions, contrary to conspiracy theorists and (baseless) assertions by the German government. The chief "evidence" given for her carrying munitions has been the size of the explosion. However, recent and extensive exploration of the wreck conducted by, among others, Bob Ballard has found not a single sign of munitions. What they did find was evidence the explosion was caused by the ignition of coal dust in a near-empty coal bunker. This certainly is more plausible than asserting that, for some odd reason, the Lusitania was carrying munitions in her coal bunkers/boiler rooms instead of her cargo holds.

I don't think this is solely based on German propoganda, there is certainly some base to it, as it is still believed by many historians today. This isn't like the Maine, where it quickly came out what the cause was contrary to popular belief. It's been nearly 100 years, and still it seems that munitions were likely onboard.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by orange
Never said that at all. Infact I specifically avoided making such an argument, because I know it's utter crap to believe otherwise.

Ok, but I disagree with your implication that Germany had some sort of "right" to sink unarmed passenger ships without warning. If they were unwilling to take the risk and surface to investigate the ships to see if they were armed or not, then they just shouldn't be torpedoing passenger liners. Regardless, they had no reason to sink the Lusitania, because as far as they knew, it was an unarmed passenger ship carrying over two thousand innocent civilians.

I don't think this is solely based on German propoganda, there is certainly some base to it, as it is still believed by many historians today.

Those historians are certainly in the minority. I've read several books about the Lusitania, as I am quite the ocean liner buff. Not one of these books ever gives serious consideration to their having been munitions on board, and several outrightly refute the claim.

This isn't like the Maine, where it quickly came out what the cause was contrary to popular belief. It's been nearly 100 years, and still it seems that munitions were likely onboard.

I don't know what you're talking about because, again, the popular conception has always been that the Lusitania wasn't carrying munitions, at least among serious scholars of the subject. Except in Germany, perhaps. But again you've failed to cite any evidence for there being munitions on board, and that's because there isn't any evidence as to such. It's pure speculation based on assumption. That doesn't mean it is "likely" at all.

I also pointed out that recent archaeology of the wreck has produced no evidence of munitions. Not only that, it has provided a compelling and plausible theory as to what caused the ship's startling quick destruction, which had previously been the primary bit of circumstantial evidence pointed to by those who believed she carried munitions.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If they were unwilling to take the risk and surface to investigate the ships to see if they were armed or not, then they just shouldn't be torpedoing passenger liners.

How would you have done it?

Left your people to die by starvation? Or rather try to starve and kill the enemy and make them feel starvation and then lead to a negotiated settlement?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Left your people to die by starvation? Or rather try to starve and kill the enemy and make them feel starvation and then lead to a negotiated settlement?

If I couldn't break the blockade through any other means than torpedoing passenger ships carrying civilians, I probably would have sued for peace, realizing I couldn't win without unacceptable civilian casualties.

[Imran Siddiqui]

This is why people won't put you in charge .