Kastrosama
New Member
you mean its not a day to source and smoke some of the finest barcelona brown? im going to have to rethink what my political motives are.. i think i have it all wrong.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
any country where there is discontent is going to experience a surge in nationalistic meatheadednesss ,eg britain in the seventie s,america post 9 11The why the patriotic and natonalist sentiment came to be is largely irrelevant given that there was a nationalistic sentiment at the outbrake of the war and it was based on that nationalistic sentiment that many people enlisted in the various armies of Europe.
No, it's just a point I made to show that it wasn't at all a bunch of poor people with no other better option than joining the army. They were students with all the chances and possibilities second level and third level education students had at the start of the 20th century. They had a lot to lose from the war and obviously a lot to gain, so it is a bit silly to use the usual apologetic cliché that a lot of peopl who enlist in the army do so because they have no better option.
Well, the basic idea is that politicians like Mussolini in Italy and Hitler in Germany (but also in other Eastern European countries) worked up the discontent amongst war veterans, who felt let down for one reason or another, for their advantage using the nationalistic and patriotic card. Indeed the core of what would then become the National Socialist Party and the Fascist Party militant wing came from these war veterans.
Not only.
Italy was one of the countries which won the war but fell at the hands of fascism because of discontent of the failed promises of the Allied countries. Or there is the examples of a few Eastern European countries which had fought to a certain extent for independence but got sort of fucked over along the line and turned very rabidly nationalistic and to the right (Poland being a very good example).
As for how I know it, it's mainly because for the first year or so of the war the armies had a surge of people enlisting volountarily rather than getting people through conscription as for the latter days. Plus there is the fact that as mentioned by AMunk, there was a quite strong patriotic and nationalistic propaganda and sentiment all across Europe at the turn of the 20th century.
Not sure where you get this students bit, students pre 1914 would've been a very small user base for an army.As I said, a lot of the early recruits where students who had chances of making big bucks even outside the army, so the whole idea of the army giving steady income and a chance to see foreign lands is quite simply redundant.
But in no way did Governments of the day push this of course.And obviously no one would have volounteered to quite probably being killed the first day on the front line,
This is correct.but you forget that when the war broke out everyone thought it would be over by Christmas 1914.
where did you get that a lot if the early recruits were students/big bucks thing from , please?????As I said, a lot of the early recruits where students who had chances of making big bucks even outside the army, so the whole idea of the army giving steady income and a chance to see foreign lands is quite simply redundant.
And obviously no one would have volounteered to quite probably being killed the first day on the front line, but you forget that when the war broke out everyone thought it would be over by Christmas 1914.
The Franz Ferdinand assassination was a catalyst for war to start off but in the instance of WW1 it was the Germans who started it. The British were not evil getting involved, they were fulfilling the terms of the then ancient Treaty of London (1839). It could be said that they were too quick to enter the war and this is perhaps reflective of the jingoistic nature of the times, but we can never know what alternatives they had at the time that would have yielded a better result. As others above have said, there was a perception that it would be a swift victory, on both sides.
There were strategic and tactical errors that led to enormous bloodshed but by and large what did for them was the lack of a clear understanding of the implication of then recent advances in military technology in changing the nature of conflict. The highers up in the armies didn't know it and the jingoistic crowds of early volunteers didn't either.
The Naval race was perhaps an example of this.Although the British and others had been in the previous few decades involved in "brushfire wars" in their various colonies, none of the major parties in this war had fought a major campaign in the guts of fifty years.
With regard to the poppy, it is worth noting that soldiers from all around the world fought and died for the British cause in that particular war and it is unfortunately ironic that the Poppy has become a symbol of Daily Mail reading retards. It is worth noting again, the poppy is worn in Canada, Australia, NZ and elsewhere. The Republic of Ireland/NI have the problem that even though 50,000 of our young men died in that war and possibly should be commemorated, the poppy is too divisive a symbol.
Is it not fair to say though that these students yr talking of (who most likely weren't a very large number) were obviously from a quite privileged background to be in college in the first place, and being quite learned would have been in much more prestigious positions in the army than yr typical mutant off the street.
you should ask jack o conner for a job ,"its quite a well known fact"means FUCK ALL !!!!!!!stop talking round in circle s and arseing about !Never said they were big bucks, just students which in the context of early 20th century meant people with a lot to lose. I am working to get together a couple of good sources, but it is a quite well known fact that universities (and to a certain extent Sixth form) were nearly completely emptied throughout the war, which I admit also includes the conscription of many young people after 1916.
But for example, the first call to arms made quite clear that they wanted men between 19 and 30 years old, obviously that means a lot of people and quite fittingly the entire university student population (and some Sixth formers) are exactly in that category. Over 3.000.000 young men volunteered in the fist couple of years of the war also thanks to the whole idea of the 'Pals battalions' which encouraged people to enlist together with their friends and fittingly a large number of schools (including a few prestigious public schools) had their own such battallions.
Upgrade your account now to disable all ads...
Upgrade nowWe use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.