Passchendaele 100 years on

[David Davis]

Quite right Alan, you were more likely to be killed in the Battle of Arras than in any other battle of the Great War. Amongst the dead was my grandmother's cousin, Private Owen of the Kings Shropshire Light Infantry. He was killed alongside his officer by a German shell and his remains were never recovered. He is commemorated on the Memorial to The Missing in Arras where you will also find the Memorial to the Missing of the RFC and RAF. "Bloody April" in which the RFC lost 40% of its aircraft in a single month took place over the Battre of Arras.

However, that same Battle of Arras resulted in the capture of Vimy Ridge, a piece of high ground to the north of Arras which dominated the Douai Plain. The French had tried to capture it unsuccessfgully on several previous occasions during the war but in April 1917 the Canadians stormed the German positions from tunnels dug right out into No Mans Land so surprise was complete and the ridge remained in British hands for the rest of the war, providing a useful position from which to observe German deployments for many miles.

[Erfolg]

Mountbatten was hardly the same as a future head of state. Perhaps a better analogy has been the Twin Towers. The causes of the invasion of Afghanistan and so on. I am not sure that I would go as far as to say war was justified against Serbia, although I would expect that no government would accept, we wont do it again, honest. However the response from Serbia was dressed up, as a yes we will not meddle again. Unfortunately the disintegration of Austrian Hungarian Empire, seems to have some similarities with UK issues with Scotland Northern Ireland and Wales

I can see that you can be double jointed in view of democracy, A large proportion of the male population, a even larger proportion of the female population in the UK had no vote at all. What passed for democracy at the time was different as to what we view today. It was a time when the UK King had considerable influence, where the judiciary was carefully selected, where the press was not independent as appearances suggested. For the time, Germany was as democratic as the UK, different as was the UK.

Possibly one of the good outcomes of WW1 were additional voting rights, increased pay for many, in the UK. For the UK WW2 gave us universal welfare, long after many other European countries.

[Don Fry]

Erf, Salin's USSR had universal sufferage male and female. African single party states, starting with the hopeful words "Democratic Repuplic of Wherever". Not shining examples of democracy. As Dave Hopkin says, the is no correlation between a right to vote as having influence on government, unless the right to vote shifts the government.

[Erfolg]

Donald

One of my points is that WW1 was not in any real sense about demoracy, either defending the concept or bringing the concept to others. The idea that the German government was totally ineffectual, The following is a cut and paste.

The Reichstag (German: [ˈʁaɪçstaːk] ( listen), Diet of the Realm^[1] or Imperial Diet) was the Parliament of Germany from 1871 to 1918. Legislation was shared between the Reichstag and the Bundesrat, which was the Imperial Council of the reigning princes of the German States.

The Reichstag had no formal right to appoint or dismiss governments, but by contemporary standards it was considered a highly modern and progressive parliament. All German men over 25 years of age were eligible to vote, and members of the Reichstag were elected by general, universal and secret suffrage. Members were elected in single-member constituencies by majority vote. If no candidate received a majority of the votes, a runoff election took place. In 1871, the Reichstag consisted of 382 members, but from 1874 it was enlarged to 397 members.^[2]

The term of office was initially set at three years, and in 1888 this was extended to five years. The Reichstag was opened once a year by the Emperor. In order to dissolve parliament, the approval of the Imperial Council and the emperor were required. Members of parliament enjoyed legal immunity and indemnity.

There are some structural similarities with our own parliament with respect to the house of Lords (until recently).

 

Edited By Erfolg on 04/08/2017 12:04:03

[Don Fry]

Arrrrr, but they could not say, had enough of this govermment, go, and enforce the wish.

But to get off politics, on a visit to the War Cemetary ot Étaples, where the dead from a great Allied hospital are buried, there is a little corner where foreign troops are buried, buried in accordance with their faiths. And one grave belongs to a man from China, a member of a transport unit. And that reduced me to tears. What had he to do with this I thought.

[David Davis]

I expect that he was desperate for a job Donald.

[Dave Hopkin]

Posted by Erfolg on 04/08/2017 12:01:54:

Donald

One of my points is that WW1 was not in any real sense about demoracy, either defending the concept or bringing the concept to others. The idea that the German government was totally ineffectual, The following is a cut and paste.

The Reichstag (German: [ˈʁaɪçstaːk] ( listen), Diet of the Realm^[1] or Imperial Diet) was the Parliament of Germany from 1871 to 1918. Legislation was shared between the Reichstag and the Bundesrat, which was the Imperial Council of the reigning princes of the German States.

The Reichstag had no formal right to appoint or dismiss governments, but by contemporary standards it was considered a highly modern and progressive parliament. All German men over 25 years of age were eligible to vote, and members of the Reichstag were elected by general, universal and secret suffrage. Members were elected in single-member constituencies by majority vote. If no candidate received a majority of the votes, a runoff election took place. In 1871, the Reichstag consisted of 382 members, but from 1874 it was enlarged to 397 members.^[2]

The term of office was initially set at three years, and in 1888 this was extended to five years. The Reichstag was opened once a year by the Emperor. In order to dissolve parliament, the approval of the Imperial Council and the emperor were required. Members of parliament enjoyed legal immunity and indemnity.

There are some structural similarities with our own parliament with respect to the house of Lords (until recently).

Edited By Erfolg on 04/08/2017 12:04:03

All correct but it ignores the powers of the Reich Chancellor who was appointed by the Emperor - Imperial decrees only needed to signature of the Reich Chancellor to become law - Imperial edicts were not subject to ratification bt the Reichstag - reducing the parliament to little more than a talking shop with the powers of a local council

[Erfolg]

David

You can always find differences between different systems, in these cases Democracies.

My contention would be that the UK was not a democracy at all, over 40% of men and approaching 100% of women did not have a vote. That the prime minister decided to declare war, that the issue was discussed with the then King.

I could go on with this type of argument seeking out differences.

Yet at the end of the day WW1 was not a fight for Democracy, in any form. As has been highlighted by others a consequence to a large extent of mutual support agreements, seeking to get even from perceived slights.

Again as alluded to by some, it is the decline in both the Austo-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires, that Serbia is seeking to exploit for its own gain, by Serbian Ggovernment officials, arming, training and targeting a foreign state to cause unrest that is the catalyst. In principle this is no longer disputed that it was officially sanctioned assassination.

In essence this was a dispute that really should have remained local, with good sense and less reckless actions by both sides. The assassination would be a foot note in history.

[Don Fry]

Erf, It was caused by powerful, arrogant and selfish men, motivated by many reasons, but at the end of the day resulted in the deaths of millions of men, mostly not their nearest kith and kin.

And I reject your argument that these were democracies. A, even flawed, democracy can change the government. Name the change mechanism in Germany. I seem to remember that German losses were 2 million dead. One of your relatives, and the content of a full Wembley stadium twenty odd times. Think of it.

[Erfolg]

In essence you are asking how do you change Queen Elizabeth 2.

William the 2 was extremely influential and he did sign all government laws. I understand that our queen still does that.

I will agree that he was far more influential than the UK King (George) was, although he was consulted. Particularly on the issue if the Czar and family should be allowed to come to the UK. Like the UK particularly in WW2, once war started, just like Churchill, there was less constraint. Prior to WW1, the prime minister in Germany, was far more obviously powerful. Bismark was perhaps the most famous, and overtly not in the shadows. By being seen as the figure head and responsible for the conduct of WW1, abdication was price the was price that both Willi along with Jo paid and then exile.

Again the set up was not the same as the UK. Then the UK was different to France and the USA, all Democracies. On reflection I see Democracies electing a Government, as a system of checks and balance on the executive, an independent judiciary, also a press that is not state controlled. There me other things. At the time of WW1 Germany and the UK would be seen as failing some of these ideas (if others broadly agree) in an absolute sense. Some argue that the UK still does not match all these ideas. At the time, both the UK and Germany were both moving down this general direction. I see both nations of exhibiting an autocratic tendency at that time. Although disapproving of Tony Blairs support of the USA, at least the UK Parliament was given a vote, I believe for the first time.

As I keep saying, you and I can keep looking for differences in arrangements, for the time both countries were pretty much democratic for their era. What difference that did and do exist, not a reason or justification for a war

To open another front, the French declaration that the Rhine was the natural border for France, also played a part in the thinking, of the Germans. The idea stretching from the Sun King, Napoleon, right up to the formation of the European Iron and Coal Community. Now the EU ,which they believe has ensured peace in Europe, by the acceptance of borders. Which the Germans have done with the admittance of both Poland and the Czech republic of land that was formely part of Germany.

[Don Fry]

.No Erf, I am asking how does the Reichstag force a change of Government. How does it have the power to prevent their rulers going to war. And before you throw the question back for the second half of the question, the answer is to refuse funding for the war. We once went to war with ourselves for that principle.

[Dave Hopkin]

Posted by Erfolg on 04/08/2017 19:22:11:

David

You can always find differences between different systems, in these cases Democracies.

My contention would be that the UK was not a democracy at all, over 40% of men and approaching 100% of women did not have a vote. That the prime minister decided to declare war, that the issue was discussed with the then King.

I could go on with this type of argument seeking out differences.

Yet at the end of the day WW1 was not a fight for Democracy, in any form. As has been highlighted by others a consequence to a large extent of mutual support agreements, seeking to get even from perceived slights.

Again as alluded to by some, it is the decline in both the Austo-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires, that Serbia is seeking to exploit for its own gain, by Serbian Ggovernment officials, arming, training and targeting a foreign state to cause unrest that is the catalyst. In principle this is no longer disputed that it was officially sanctioned assassination.

In essence this was a dispute that really should have remained local, with good sense and less reckless actions by both sides. The assassination would be a foot note in history.

Indeed it was not particularly a war for democracy, in 1914 it could be argued that none of the major states were democratic as we define it today

The Second Reich was a "Authoritarian Monarchy" not a democracy as the Monarch was not constrained by an elected body, but a system where all significant decisions were made by the monarch and.or his appointed chancellor and those decisions were not challengable in the riechstag

The situation in the UK was that of a constitutional monarchy, the monarch was not empowered to initiate any decisions, that power lay with the elected government, while it is true that there is no need for a government to ask parliament before declaring war non the less the government is subject to a vote of no confidence and removal from office should it loose that vote

So in 1914 we had a partial electorate in germany voting for a body with severely limited powers, against a more restricted electorate voting for a body with absolute power in the UK - Neither true democracies (and could not be until universal suffrage - including women - were introduced) but on the political IV scales used to measure levels of democracy Germany was far lower on the scale than the UK

That is both my opinion and that of every academic study including German ones, across the world for the last 100 years - you can put forwards all the tangental objections you wish but yours will be a voice in the wilderness, I will leave you with the suggestion that you read of the machinations of Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg the German Chancellor particularly during the "August Crisis"

[ASH.]

BBC2 7.30pm. Royal Cousins at War - A House Divided 1/2.

[Erfolg]

Well David you wrong, totally wrong. I guess you are being provocative?

There are numerous discussions which attempt to relate the degree of Democracy in the various states leading up to 1914. I was tempted to paste one specific one that suggested that Germany was significantly ahead in the democratic stakes than the UK. Then goes onto examine the relationship of the control of both the parliament and chief ministers on the head of state. You can always find some that are more favourable than others. Are you really suggesting that WW! was fought for Democracy?

The reality was all of the countries were different in what passed for democracy, which is the case today. Just consider the USA.

WW1 was not fought over democracy. The principal factors that lead to the wide spread nature of the conflict, did not principally involve democracy.

More important was the rise of the German industrial capability. The perceived in todays jargon, of non tariff barriers of the British Empire. The desire of Germany to establish its own Empire. The French to seek vengeance for two wars with German States. The Austrians and Ottoman Empires trying to maintain a status quo, in a region that external enterties had an interest in gaining or increasing their influence. Many countries trying to back the winning side. Possibly the Mutual Support Treaties increased the speed of the escalation, there being less need to consider what should be done

A number of things are now clear to see, that at the beginning of WW1 was the height of the British Empire, although there were signs that some colonies were gaining greater freedom from the either direct control or influence of the UK. Germany lost what little foreign empire it had. Essentially it was the beginning of the end of the British type of Empire and the poorer relations (the attempted copies). Both Germany and Austria lost territories to other nations.

From the outcome of WW1 a new world power emerged, the USA, WW2 consolidated that status. Whatever the UK and Germany had thought they would get out of the conflict, I suggest both were sadly mistaken.

If Austria and Germany had won how much would be different. Is open to even more debate. The Franco German war suggests that Germany was less interested in territory than some would suggest. Although at that time Germany as understood today did not exist. That was Bismarcks real ambition and goal.

[Don Fry]

Erf, I believe you brought up the issue of democracy in your post of 3/7, at 20xx hours. And by the Franco German war I believe you refer to its commoner name of Franco Prussian war of 1870. I don't think the seizure of Alsace and Lorraine is not expressing an interest in territory. From memory, they are a fair bit bigger than Wales.

And if Austria and Germany had won I would probably become accustomed to a leaner diet. Although, perhaps spared American cuisine.

[Don Fry]

And by the way, you haven't aswerered a simple question. How does the Reichstag change or defy the government. It is after all the boss in a democracy.

[Dave Hopkin]

You continue to claim Germany as a paragon of democracy lets delve into that a little deeper beyond the facade of universal suffrage shall we.....

Bismark united Germany, but it was by no means a union of equals Prussia was by far the most powerful and played a highly dominant role in legislation, whilst Bismark also introduced universal suffrage (for males) the voting system was very different from a standard democracy - Prussia adopted a differential voting system where there was a "three class voting system" where voters were segregated by tax payable, which translates into a first class vote being 5% of the population but wielding around 70% of the voting power, virtually guarenteing the perpetuation of the ruling elite also voting was done orally and in public - so very open to employer influence - This placed the Prussian Junkers class in an unassailable position of privelidge and power - Due to the lack of boundary reforms during industrialistion the urban areas were grossly underrepresented so much so that in one election in Essen, Alfred Krupp was the only first class voter and effectively controlled the constituency.

Hardly a paragon of Democracy

Now lets look at the structure of the Union of German State - The Kaiser appointed the chancellor and between them were in total control of all the significant areas of Government - the Army, foreign policy and crucially could disband the Reichstag without its consent - leaving the Reichstag with basically domestic policy

In addition legislation from the Reichstag required the consent of the Bundesrat - a chamber of appointed representative from each of the original members of the German confederation, a legislature heavily biased in favour of Prussia due to the numbers of members sent - of course there were predominantly from the Junkers class all loyal to the emperor and even if the Reichstag did pass a bill that was not in line with the Kaisers wishes it would inevitably fail in the Bundesrat

So all in all Imperial Germany had a facade of Democracy but real power was highly concentrated in the Kaiser - hardly the paragon of democracy when you get past the superficial layer of state function

Add into the mix a Kaiser who was weak and under the influence of senior Army generals and you effectively have a Autocratic Monarchy controlled by a military elite - Not the paragon of democracy you like to think it was

[PatMc]

Posted by Erfolg on 06/08/2017 17:47:14:

Well David you wrong, totally wrong. I guess you are being provocative?

Are you really suggesting that WW! was fought for Democracy?

David specificaly stated "Indeed it was not particularly a war for democracy, in 1914 it could be argued that none of the major states were democratic as we define it today"

Erf, I suggest that you refer to the first rule of holes.

[Erfolg]

Dave

I would never try to argue that Germany was a paragon of Democracy. Nor would I begin to try, or want to say that the system was of equals.

I will go as far as to say, after studying of how Germany came into being, in something like its present state, it is incredibly difficult to understand what happened and why.

Having read about German History, and tried to understand Austrian history, I came to the conclusion, that there was not one version, that all Germans or Austrians or Hungarians etc would agree. In the case of Germany, most of the time the Emperor, was a pretty meaningless title. At other times a position forged into substance.Mostly a case of individual states, run by prices or kings.

How much was planned by Bismarck, and how much was serendipity, is also questionable, in the unification, is very debatable.

There are some events which stand out, the capitulation to Napoleon, had a dramatic change to the mindset of the Prussians, i forget who said it, that this will never happen again. The french seeing the small German states as a easy target.

From here, we often do not recognise that much of Europe has been unstable for perhaps 1,000 years. With Sweden once being a major power, controlling northern Europe. That Spain has laid claim to many countries. That Italy is as now known is a recent construct. Perhaps most disquieting is that many of the ideas of the EU, in its simplest form, were found in the Hansa League, where its internal fault lines, in conjunction with external pressures saw it rise and fall.

Perhaps one of the most illuminating discussions I have had was with a historian from Edinburgh University, over the battle of Cuiloden, where my daughter lived. I remember her saying, that to portray the events as a battle for Scotland against the English, was far to simplistic. The point was that the nationalities involved on both sides was both varied, with approx as many Scots on both sides, as many did not want the return of the clan/laid relationships or continuation of what was in place in the highlands. That there were foreign trooops on both sides. it was a battle ( or a fight) of armies of vested interests, that sort to either, regain, protect or advance them. I see WW1 as being very similar. No easy, or virtuous answer. That is as my mother always said, history is written by the victor.

The TV program could be very interesting about Victoria and William,. From accounts there were a lot of friction, It seems debatable who was the most arrogant and full of themselves and there relative positions and importance.

[Daithi O Buitigh]

Before I start, I also lost a grandfather in 1918 - not in action but 8 days after trhe Armistice while a PoW in Meschede. He had survived Gallipoli, been wounded in the Balkans and returned to Active Service just in time to be captured at Saint Quentin in March 1918.

Anyway, regarding 'democracy' as it existed in 1914, it's important to keep a couple of things in mind about the British system. Firstly, until 1902 the Prime Minister was a member of the House of Lords and it was that body which had control - not the elected Commons. This continued until 1909 when the veto powers of the Lords were restricted (but not abolished) so they still had a fair bit of clout. In effect this meant that any suffrage had a very limited degree of control of Parliament (if any).

Regarding Belgium: while there was a treaty, the use of that was cynical (remember the British Government castigated Belgium over the treatment by their king of the Congo) and was merely an excuse as Germany was expanding its Empire and with the growth of its navy and manufacturing output was becoming a threat to Britain in the commercial sphere.

It is also worth remembering that King George V's mother (Queen Alexandra) was Danish and hated the Germans (they had taken over the German speaking province of Holstein which had, until then, been part of Denmark)

France was smarting over the 'loss' of Alsace and Lorraine (and everyone overlooked the fact that both of those 'French' territories were, in the main, German speaking provinces that had been annexed by France). One interesting point regarding Alsace/Lorraine is that, under the Treaty of Versailles, all German provinces were to have a plebiscite as to whether or not they remained part of Germany. France refused point-blank to implement that.

No doubt a lot will disagree with my assessment, but some facts have been overlooked (by all sides)

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Dave Hopkin]

Posted by Daithi O Buitigh on 06/08/2017 22:49:30:

Anyway, regarding 'democracy' as it existed in 1914, it's important to keep a couple of things in mind about the British system. Firstly, until 1902 the Prime Minister was a member of the House of Lords and it was that body which had control - not the elected Commons. This continued until 1909 when the veto powers of the Lords were restricted (but not abolished) so they still had a fair bit of clout. In effect this meant that any suffrage had a very limited degree of control of Parliament (if any).

Regarding Belgium: while there was a treaty, the use of that was cynical (remember the British Government castigated Belgium over the treatment by their king of the Congo) and was merely an excuse as Germany was expanding its Empire and with the growth of its navy and manufacturing output was becoming a threat to Britain in the commercial sphere.

It is also worth remembering that King George V's mother (Queen Alexandra) was Danish and hated the Germans (they had taken over the German speaking province of Holstein which had, until then, been part of Denmark)

France was smarting over the 'loss' of Alsace and Lorraine (and everyone overlooked the fact that both of those 'French' territories were, in the main, German speaking provinces that had been annexed by France). One interesting point regarding Alsace/Lorraine is that, under the Treaty of Versailles, all German provinces were to have a plebiscite as to whether or not they remained part of Germany. France refused point-blank to implement that.

No doubt a lot will disagree with my assessment, but some facts have been overlooked (by all sides)

A couple of points

During the 19th century Prime Ministers existed in both houses - Peel, Gladstone and Disreali were in the commons

From 1902 Prime Ministers have been exclusively from the commons (Balfour Cambell Bannerman, Asquith, Lloyd George etc)

Secondly the House of Lords veto was removed in the Parliament Act of 1911 (though they could delay a bill and still can)

Alsace was incorporated into France in the 1640's and was siezed by Prussia after the war of 1870 - and as a result of that over 100,000 alsatians left their homes rather than be ruled by Prussia - When French Troops reoccupied it in 1918 they were cheered and welcomed.

The treaty with Belgium was convieniant of course, whilst we will never know for sure, the prospect of a German Navy based in the Belgian ports was something Britain could never tolerate and made war inevitable once Belgium was attacked