About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

March 17, 2014 7:00am by David Farrar

If WWI was a bar fight

I love the last few lines especially. From The Meta Picture.

Share this:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Reddit
WhatsApp
More

Pinterest
Print
Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment52

Humour
International Politics
Humour
WWI

Comments (52)

Login to comment or vote

kowtow

And having stolen Germany’s wallet set up the second bar fight.
3 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 7:05am
EAD

A bit of personal one – my immediate family were lucky, no deaths in either of the World Wars yet I still feel a real emotional attachment to the generation that died in the trenches, which is hard to explain. I always weep at the Remembrance Service. The documents of my ancestors involvement will be handed down, and the stories re-told.

I was very privileged to attend an Anzac Day Dawn service at Gallipoli several years ago and the letter that Captain Malone, Commander of the Wellington Batallion wrote to his wife the night before the attack on Chunuk Bair will remain imprinted in my mind for eternity. The words spoke of a time long since passed and a selflessness of character which I regret the passing of:

“My Sweetheart
In less than two hours we move off to a valley, where we will be up all night and tomorrow in readiness for a big attack which will start from tomorrow night. everything promises well and victory should rest with us. God grant it so and that our casualties will not be too heavy. I expect to go through all right but my dear wife if anything untoward happens to me there are our dear children to be brought up. You know how I love and have loved you, and we have had many years of great happiness together. If at anytime in the past I seemed absorbed in “affairs”, it was that I might make proper provision for you and the children.

“I know you will never forget or let the dear children do so. I am prepared for death and hope that God will have forgiven me all my sins. My desire for life – so that I may see and be with you again – could not be greater but I have only done what every man was bound to do in our country’s need. It has been a great consolation to me that you approved my action; the sacrifice was really yours. May you be consoled and rewarded by our dear Lord.”
7 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 7:15am
Judith

@ EAD (223 comments) says:
March 17th, 2014 at 7:15 am

I doubt there are few alive that have actually experienced the sheer horror that those men faced, on not just on a daily basis but for each and every minute of the day.

At the moment the world is reeling in horror as a plane with some 200+ souls has apparently disappeared. During WWI & WWII and previous wars, families and loved ones lived daily with the knowledge that thousands were missing, not known if they were alive, dead, or lying injured in some stinking bog, like Passenchendael.

We can only imagine their torment, and the terror. We have reconstructed it in media and movies etc, but nothing can recreate what it must have felt like, and lets hope none of us ever have to find out again.

I guess the Bar fight analogy is pretty accurate – on a basic level, but God forbid if we ever forget the actual human cost of that brawl. “Lest we forget”
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 8:11am
Lance

There is another longer version;
Germany, Austria and Italy are standing together in the middle of a pub when Serbia bumps into Austria and spills Austria’s pint. Austria demands Serbia buy it a complete new suit because there are splashes on its trouser leg. Germany expresses its support for Austria’s point of view. Britain recommends that everyone calm down a bit.Serbia points out that it can’t afford a whole suit, but offers to pay for the cleaning of Austria’s trousers. Russia and Serbia look at Austria. Austria asks Serbia who it’s looking at. Russia suggests that Austria should leave its little brother alone. Austria inquires as to whose army will assist Russia in compelling it to do so. Germany appeals to Britain that France has been looking at it, and that this is sufficiently out of order that Britain should not intervene. Britain replies that France can look at who it wants to, that Britain is looking at Germany too, and what is Germany going to do about it?Germany tells Russia to stop looking at Austria, or Germany will render Russia incapable of such action. Britain and France ask Germany whether it’s looking at Belgium. Turkey and Germany go off into a corner and whisper.When they come back, Turkey makes a show of not looking at anyone. Germany rolls up its sleeves, looks at France, and punches Belgium. France and Britain punch Germany. Austria punches Russia. Germany punches Britain and France with one hand and Russia with the other. Russia throws a punch at Germany, but misses and nearly falls over. Japan calls over from the other side of the room that it’s on Britain’s side, but stays there. Italy surprises everyone by punching Austria.Austria Australia punches Turkey, and gets punched back. There are no hard feelings because Britain made Austria Australia do it. France gets thrown through a plate glass window, but gets back up and carries on fighting. Russia gets thrown through another one, gets knocked out, suffers brain damage, and wakes up with a complete personality change. Italy throws a punch at Austria and misses, but Austria falls over anyway.Italy raises both fists in the air and runs round the room chanting. America waits till Germany is about to fall over from sustained punching from Britain and France, then walks over and smashes it with a barstool, then pretends it won the fight all by itself. By now all the chairs are broken and the big mirror over the bar is shattered. Britain, France and America agree that Germany threw the first punch, so the whole thing is Germany’s fault. While Germany is still unconscious, they go through its pockets, steal its wallet, and buy drinks for all their friends
5 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 8:13am
Simon

Germany wants to fight everyone in the bar as Germany considers it is their bar afterall.
2 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 8:19am
YesWeDid

This is from the Ben Elton book ‘The First Casualty’. A group of soldiers are discussing why they are fighting and one of them uses the bar fight analogy to try and make sense of it all.

Recommended.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 8:21am
Ben Dover

Any way a formative period for Adolph Hitler and

Rewi Alley

The how america came into the war is fascinating.

NZ reading
The Voices of Gallipolli: Maurice Shadbolt
is a “must read” transcription of interviews with Survivors

NZ did take “Chunik Bair” to be shelled off it by the British Navy
I don’t think many NZers know this fact as it was not allowed to be known
until the 1980’s.

On their first day in France 1916 the Australians got within 50-100metres
of Adolph Hitler his fellow dispatch runners memoirs (they worked in pairs)
describe him an adolph rolling away from Australian grenades.

History would not have changed much if they had got Adolph in my opinion.

The Real question is why were they there?

My Kiwi granddad who was there “France with the Americans” described WW1
as the Ruling classes de populating the “working classes”

Which in hindsight is reasonably accurate.

It was really fought for the formation of Israel and nothing much else, which NZ assisted in the formation of.
2 6
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 8:48am
Ed Snack

As much as we want to joke about it, it’s quite a good description, at least IMHO. I’d just add a little in near the start, where Serbia offers to clean Austria’s trousers; they then agree to buy a new suit, but Austria then demands a new round of beer plus sausages for all as well…. Austria gave Serbia an ultimatum which by all accounts was so stringent that they calculated that Serbia couldn’t agree, but Serbia did, where upon Austria refused that acceptance and added further demands. They really wanted that Cassus Belli, but oddly enough once the balloon went up it took Austria ages to get moving and the Serbs repulsed them first time anyway.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 9:00am
mikenmild

This was posted in General Debate last week; I forget by whom. Very funny.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 9:09am
Kimbo

Yeah, Nah.

I think, contrary to much of the revisionism, aided and abetted by the self-serving memoirs of David Lloyd George who threw his generals under the bus when they were only fighting a war the politicians ultimately presided over…

that the Great War was a just war by Britain and her Empire, particularly against German militarism. The Kaiser was the one who gambled by issuing a “blank cheque” to the Austro-Hungarians, so that they made demands that were impossible for the Serbians to accept. Belgium was CERTAINLY minding its own business and deserved defending, whether it was in Britain’s self-interest over a “scrap of paper” (to quote the German Chancellor) or not. Europe had a system of inter-twining alliances for over 40 years after the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71. The forty years of peace demonstrated was was NOT inevitable.

Claims to the contrary are just another attempt to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by the left-wing plot theorists.

Just saying…
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 9:15am
Kimbo

And have a look at the terms of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk to see what the Central Powers viewed as the raison d’etre for their war. It puts claims that the Germans were “unjustly” treated at the Treaty of Versailles, including the “war guilt” and reparations clauses, into perspective: –

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk

Even with the unnecessary (and ultimately foolish – other than Jutland they let it rust in Kiel Harbour!) growth of the German Navy as a threat to Britain, the Allies in 1914 were satisfied (if not overjoyed) to retain the status quo. The Central Powers weren’t. There was the Cassus Belli.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 9:41am
Fentex

As this year is the centenary of the Great Wars start it’s very topical in the UK and there’s been a public debate about the causes and prosecution of the war with some complaining that many cynics are too harsh on the leadership of the time, taking their cues from BlackAdder and Oh What A Lovely War et al and not showing proper respect for history.

It’s an interesting argument to observe. From my perspective it seems like courtiers concerned that peasants might ask too many awkward questions about more current affairs and wish they’d just shut up and understand it’s all above them and they ought go and die where told.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 10:12am
mikenmild

I think the debate in the UK has been about a too bland approach to the centenary – a reluctance to acknowledge the reasons for the war for fear of upsetting the Germans.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 10:24am
Judith

I am sure a competent analysis of the politics concerning all of last centuries wars reveals many disturbing and inconsistent facts – but what does remain is the human cost of those wars.

It annoys me that some people belittle my grandfather’s contribution, because the war should never have occurred and he shouldn’t have been there etc.

He was there – blissfully unaware of the politics behind it, and so was my father for WWII. They, like thousands of other men and women on both sides, went because it was the ‘right’ thing to do.

Their generations lived in different times that were very different to those of us that were born since. We have lived with the ‘death imprint’ – that knowledge that humanity has the potential to inflict tremendous harm upon large numbers of people. We have lived with the knowledge of the death camps, Horoshima and Nagasaki, and with the fear of the potential for the mass destruction of humanity by the advances in weaponary etc.

We’ve lived with the power of the civil rights movement, feminist revolution, and anti war movements. We can look back and analyse and decide who at the top was right or wrong – but we cannot judge those who followed orders that today, we would probably question.

Politically it’s interesting, historically it’s pertinent, but none of it takes the heroism away from those that fought in the trenches and elsewhere. Regardless of who was to blame – those men were brave and should be remembered for the personal cost – not the political mistakes.
2 3
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 10:35am
Fletch

There is another longer version;

Yah, I posted the link in GD a few days ago.

http://themetapicture.com/if-wwi-was-a-bar-fight/
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 10:49am
ShawnLH

The Third Reich trilogy by Richard Evans is worth reading. In the first book he goes into great detail on the ideology and long term plans of the Kaisers Germany and makes the argument that ideologically speaking, there was little real difference between the Germany of WW1 and that of the Nazis. I used to be one of those who believed that WW1 was just a spat between Imperial powers until I read Evan’s book.
6 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 11:13am
Jim Rose

I love the bar fight analogy for the start of world war 1. Wars are like bar fights. Both are about not backing down.

No-one could back down in 1914. Tom Schelling even said that once a country mobilised for war in 1914, it had no plans at hand on how to stop this mobilisation.

In Schelling view, many wars including World War 1 were products of mutual alarm and unpredictable tests of will. Schelling and others in the 1950s and after studied World War 1 to learn how to not blunder into wars when nuclear weapons now would be used.

When people discuss the futility of World War 1, they under rate the role of unintended consequences and the dark side of human rationality in situations involving collective action.

It is even harder to get out of a war than into one. The problem is credible assurances that the peace is lasting rather than a chance for the other side to rebuild and come back to attack from a stronger position.

An understudied issue is peace feelers in World War 1 such as by the German chancellor in 1916 and the Reichstag peace resolution on 19 July 1917. Pope Benedict XV tried to mediate with his Peace Note of August 1917.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 11:32am
Cato

The best bar-fight analogy I’ve heard is this.

– Germany and France have been trading words ever since Germany stole France’s girlfriend Lorraine.

– France is smaller and weaker than Germany but Germany worries France has called its mate Russia to get to the bar as soon as possible so they can deck Germany together.

– Germany therefore decides that if should knock France out before Russia can get there. It can then face Russia one on one.

– There is a risk that Britain, who is also at the bar, might intervene to help France. Germany decides to risk it anyway.

That chimes with the Niall Fergusson take on things anyway.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 11:33am
Sam Buchanan

Think it should be added that Austria had been putting on a bit of weight and, feeling it had lost the respect of it’s family, was suffering a mid-life crisis, so was looking for a way to demonstrate that it wasn’t over the hill.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 11:40am
stephieboy

“Catastrophe “by Historian Max Hastings essential reading for an in depth understanding of WW I and its origins especially this year the centennial the beginning of the war
Some of his comments and responsibility ,

“……He shows how the Austrians coldly set out to destroy Serbia; how Berlin gave Vienna a “blank cheque”, assuring it of German support; how both countries ignored the certainty that Russia would pitch in on the side of its Slav protégé Serbia; and how Germany’s autocracy, under its mentally unstable Kaiser, deliberately pushed Europe over the edge. Germany recklessly gambled that Britain would stay out of the war, and that even if it did not, they could, anyhow, win it within weeks by knocking out France, before turning to deal with Russia at leisure: the same pipedream pursued by Hitler a quarter of a century later.
Hastings pushes the parallels between the two world wars even closer. He details the barbarities perpetrated by the Kaiser’s armies as they marched through Belgium, showing that such atrocities, though smaller in scale than the Nazis’ crimes in 1939-45 (6,000 civilians murdered rather than six million), were inflicted in the same wanton spirit. With irrefutable logic Hastings argues that if it was right for Britain to wage war in defence of Poland in 1939, then it was also correct to take up arms in defence of Belgium in 1914.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/historybookreviews/10382547/Catastrophe-by-Max-Hastings-review.html
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 11:56am
Ed Snack

Thanks Judith for that comment, I often disagree with you here, but that one was on the money. It is a mistake to judge those of previous generations in isolation from their own time.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 12:13pm
Kimbo

No-one could back down in 1914. Tom Schelling even said that once a country mobilised for war in 1914, it had no plans at hand on how to stop this mobilisation.

Hmm. That is usually what apologists for Germany, or the “it was just a big blunder” proponents argue, pointing the finger at the Russians who mobilised first, and citing the supposed dictum, “mobilisation means war!”.

Well, if you were Germany, with the intricately timetabled Schlieffen plan that required a gigantic arc of hundreds of thousands of soldiers marching through neutral Belgium and into France before either country had declared war, then…yes, you couldn’t stop mobilisation.

But then violating Belgian neutrality was driven by a perceived military necessity to make the plan successful, rather than from astute political judgement. There is a word to describe when generals determine foreign policy: militarism.

The Russians were slow and lumbering, and invaded no sovereign territory before the Central Powers got going (the bombardment of Belgrade on July 28, the violation of French and Belgian neutrality on August 1). They would have had plenty of time to pull back if the Central Powers had stayed their hand, and entered into negotiations the British were trying to initiate before the invasion of Belgium inevitably forced them to intervene.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 12:14pm
Kimbo

“Catastrophe “by Historian Max Hastings essential reading for an in depth understanding of WW I and its origins especially this year the centennial the beginning of the war…With irrefutable logic Hastings argues that if it was right for Britain to wage war in defence of Poland in 1939, then it was also correct to take up arms in defence of Belgium in 1914.

Good summation, stephieboy.

Germany, courtesy of its geographic position in Europe, its population, and its wealth was a major determinant of the world’s fortunes as liberal democracy emerged in the 19th and early 20th century from the shadow of chauvinism, autocracy and dictatorship.

The fact that western Europe now enjoys peace is because the Germans grew up, and became a fully great nation. THAT is what has changed since 1914 and 1939.

It is only a pity that British historical uncertainty over its actions in 1914 caused it to reject fighting for Czechoslovakia in 1938. As Churchill rightly observed, “The notion that peace can be obtained by throwing a small State to the wolves is a fatal delusion”. If they had stood up in 1938, there is a good case to be made that World War II would have been averted by a German coup to get rid of Hitler. Plus German military power was far less in 1938 than it proved a year later.

Such is the result of misreading the lessons of history.
4 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 12:35pm
mikenmild

Kimbo
I think you’ll find there is less consensus around the Munich agreement in 1938 than about the outbreak of WWI. Many hold that Britain was in no shape to fight in 1938 but that its position was comparatively much stronger in 1939.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 12:47pm
Kimbo

mikenmild

Yes, I’m aware you can bat it back and forth.

However, the Czechoslovakians were far more formidable than the Poles proved in 1939 – due to a combination of mountainous terrain on their border, and a well-equipped and sophisticated mechanised army courtesy of the Skoda Works.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 12:52pm
Jim Rose

milkenmild, from what I read, the British and French were playing every possible card to delay the wat while they re-armed. The Munich agreement was a great success by that criterion.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 12:53pm
Sequel

Schelling is wrong. Mobilisation for every country (other than Germany) was a diplomatic tool. All countries (who hadn’t determined on war) accepted that there would be a pause between mobilisation and actual war. It would send a very, very serious message, but would still allow diplomats to talk. This is what had happenned in the Bosnian crisis in 1907/08 and was expected to happen again in 1914. In 1914 France (and Russia) still intended to use mobilisation in this way.

However, for Germany, mobilisation meant war. There was no pause allowed by its war plans. Soldiers reported to mobilisation depots, entrained, and the trains would then roll across national borders (such as at Aachen right next to Belgium). A decision to mobilise was a decision to invade – no pause could be allowed.

Could write screeds more (both Masters and PhD in WWI history) but I don’t want to bore people …

Dickon M
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 12:55pm
Jim Rose

on Churchill and “The notion that peace can be obtained by throwing a small State to the wolves is a fatal delusion”, the war was won because an extra year of re-armament was secured.

Edvard Beneš, the President of Czechoslovakia, was the smartest guy in that room. His country survived world war 2 with little damage and Prague was not bombed. Beneš played both sides of the room all the way up to 1945 to save his country. ruthless too: then expelled all Germans to reduce the chances of another annexation.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 1:01pm
Kimbo

…the British and French were playing every possible card to delay the wat while they re-armed. The Munich agreement was a great success by that criterion.

Hmm. Sounds like a justification after the event. I don’t think that was Chamberlain’s PRIMARY intent. Just a by-product. Like Stalin trying to argue the same thing in 1941 (and he WAS taken by complete surprise).

Plus it can’t have been THAT successful because I’m sure the fall of France wasn’t in the plan! Britain, as per the situation at the outbreak of World War I was a naval, not a land power. Taken together they should have both done a far better job in May 1940 (when the Germans won through superior tactics and concentration of force, rather than by greater materiel).

France needed the morale-boosting certainty of British support. The capitulation of 1938 sent a message that, deep-down, the British (well, their leadership through Chamberalian and Halifax anyway) were half-hearted. Ironically, it was only when the French had thrown in the towel, and the Brits had their backs to the wall that the true British character was allowed to emerge.

Credit where it is due, though: at least Chamberlain’s earnest attempts left no one in ANY doubts what the fight in 1939 was about, and what the stakes were. Unlike World War I, the apologists haven’t YET been able to steal defeat from the jaws of victory after the event. Although I think AJP Taylor has tried some mischief-making
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 1:37pm
Jim Rose

Sequel, But again to quote Schelling:
“A government never knows just how committed it is to action until the occasion when its commitment is challenged.

Nations, like people, are continually engaged in demonstrations of resolve, tests of nerve, and explorations for understandings and misunderstandings….

This is why there is a genuine risk of major war not from ‘accidents’ in the military machine but through a diplomatic process of commitment that is itself unpredictable”

A state also can be tempted to start a war now to avoid having to deal with a stronger opponent in the future. That is why Britain and France declared war on Germany in 1939.
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 2:00pm
Kimbo

A government never knows just how committed it is to action until the occasion when its commitment is challenged.

But it IS surer of its own commitment compared to that of another party when it sets out on a course of action! That is human nature. Or are we going to blame the rape victim for what she wore, and not properly discerning the intent of the rapist at the time of the his first overtures?!

And in the context of 1914, the German implementation of the Schlieffen Plan shows they were FULLY prepared to take on Russia and France, making it academic whether the “diplomatic process of commitment” was “unpredictable”. They always expected to be encircled, and acted in a way to both make it so, and also try and land a quick knock-out blow to render it null and void!

Plus Germany was NEVER anything other than wishful in her thinking to justify the belief Britain wouldn’t enter the war over the violation of Belgian neutrality. Talk of “perfidious Albion” overlooked British treaty commitments, the necessity to keep Channel ports out of the hands of aggressive rivals, and the traditional British opposition to allowing one power to dominate the continent.

But according to the gamble of the Schlieffen Plan, it would have been academic, anyway. France out of the way within a month and a half, and Russia (and Britain if they were involved) having no option other than to accept a new status quo.

A state also can be tempted to start a war now to avoid having to deal with a stronger opponent in the future. That is why Britain and France declared war on Germany in 1939.

Yeah, nah. This is more blaming the victims. Whether Britain and France thought Germany would be stronger in the future (and when a nation goes grabbing the nations of Europe, it is a pretty good bet they will!), the declaration of war in 1939 by Britain and France was good and right. They had no certainty of knowing they would prevail. France for four years didn’t! To quote Basil Fawlty, “you started it. You invaded Poland!”.

Anything else is just over-cute rationalising.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 2:28pm
Sequel

Jim Rose,

I agree partly with what you (and Schelling) are saying. However the narrative doesn’t quite support it entirely. For Germany, there was never any possibility of pausing at the border. Invasion of Belgium and Luxembourg and France was intrinsically linked to mobilisation. German armies and soldier could not be paused at the border without causing chaos and destroying the Schleifen Plan – its mobilisation scheme was predicated on invasion as a necessary first step to beating France and redeploying to beat Russia before that country could complete its own mobilisation. This is in stark contrast to France and Russia. Russia mobilised to send a diplomatic message to Austria (and Germany too). The message was ‘we’re serious and you should not ignore us’. Mobilisation, for Russia, did not automatically equate to war. France mobilised its army but pulled it back 10 km from the German and Belgian border to ensure it could not be labelled as an agressor. It was only Germany that linked mobilisation and actual war, with no pause or time for dimplomacy between the two.

Of course, the stakes were incredibly high. It’s hard to back down when you have millions of soldiers mobilising – war can often seem the ‘easier’ option then more negotiation. Once all these soldiers were in motion events became very, very fluid and, as many historians have noted, control passed out of the hands of civilian authorities into the hands of the military’s. Mistakes and misinterpretations did happen and new facts on the ground were created hour by hour.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 2:41pm
Kimbo

Mistakes and misinterpretations did happen and new facts on the ground were created hour by hour.

Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis relied heavily upon the analysis of the events of 1914 in Barbara Tuchman’s then-recently published The Guns of August to try and avoid the same thing happening with Khruschev.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 2:48pm
Ed Snack

Jim Rose, I think you are incorrect about the French in 1938. For a period when Deladier was PM in France, he was keen to prevent Germany gaining any ground and he apparently attempted to form a common front with Chamberlain over resisting Hitler’s demands, but Chamberlain refused. Chamberlain instead went directly to Hitler and negotiated away Czechoslovakia’s right to exist. It is interesting to note that at this point Poland is one Germany’s side, having been promised a slice of Czech territory.

Certainly Britain was unready for war and very reluctant to enter one, but German was a lot less prepared than it was in 1939 and it is important to note that a significant chunk of their armour in 1939 was based on the Czech t38 chassis that they gained in the takeover of Czechoslovakia. The other big advantage in 1938 was that, even if only temporarily, the French would have been more committed to action. Deladier remained in office through to 1940, but was very distrustful of British motives so Anglo-French coordination was poor in 1939-40.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 3:37pm
mikenmild

Ed
It’s one of those counterfactuals that can be tossed back and forth: what would have been the outcome if WWII had started in 1938 instead of 1939? It’s unknowable, but fun to kick around.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 3:44pm
Kimbo

Deladier remained in office through to 1940, but was very distrustful of British motives so Anglo-French coordination was poor in 1939-40.

Which is why they both dropped the ball in failing to convince Stalin that they were serious about stopping Hitler’s aggression, or were willing to bear their share in any conflict. Hence the signing of the up-until-then ideologically untenable Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact in 1939.

Stalin’s famous phrase was that not going to be maneuvered into a position where he had to “pull the chestnuts out of the fire” for Britain and France.

So much for a grand plan to play for time, and co-ordinate as many arms as possible to bear on Nazi aggression.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 3:50pm
Ed Snack

Mike, sure, I was just wanting to “correct” Jim’s statement that both France and Britain wanted to purely play for time to prepare in 1938. In fact it was one time when France was prepared to stand its ground, but then Britain wasn’t. There’s lots of reasons why for both stands and that’s what happened; it’s not intended to be a a counter-factual argument as such.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 4:10pm
Jim Rose

Ed, France and England could have been playing good cop and bad cop in 1938 too but happy to be corrected. also, the dominions were not keen on war in 1938?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 6:40pm
Ben Dover

Here is something to ponder.

New Zealanders on Special Category Visas in AUS
are allowed to do everything except Serve in or With the Australian Army.

The Past Sacrifice means nothing.

The Grandson of a NZ gallipoli veteran with Military experience had to campaign in Vain
even to be able to serve in the Reserves.

Those are the Rules.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 8:04pm
mikenmild

They can become Australian citizens if they wish to serve in the Australian defence forces.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 8:07pm
Ben Dover

Ed, France and England could have been playing good cop and bad cop
he dominions were not keen on war in 1938?

Jesus I wonder why that was?

>
Do you know something NZ and AUs are as undefended and un defendable as they were in 1938
nothing has been learned at all from WW1 or 2?

>
Really didn’t stop them (the French) thanking NZ sacrifice by practicing terrorism in NZ ports
did it?

Many British “experts” dispute the position of the NZ Memorial at gallipolli
they don’t realise or admit that their Navy shelled the NZers of Chunik Bair
but that’s poms for you” Who needs enemies with friends like that

Pompous louts and postering Lunatics
is the best Quote from Voices of Gallipolli
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 8:10pm
Ben Dover

Certainly Britain was unready for war and very reluctant to enter one, but German was a lot less prepared than it was in 1939

>
The reason why the German were prepared for War was that is was declared on them in 1933
in the New York Times.

You know germans mate not big on Humour

Both my Grand parents were in Germany post WW1 both returned to say it will happen again
you don’t have to be Nostrodamus to figure it out?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 8:15pm
Ben Dover

The fact that western Europe now enjoys peace is because the Germans grew up, and became a fully great nation. THAT is what has changed since 1914 and 1939.

<
Germany has been used cynically as buffer zone to prevent the spread of communism.

One thing they have learned is debt is slavery and they realise the importance of manufacturing?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 8:20pm
Ben Dover

History is just a Quant arrangement of one sides lies

For War to happen all sort of BS comes first just like in the Ukraine at the moment

Total and utter BS

same with Syria is it only happening because the same people who wanted WW1 and WW2
are giving it the green light
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 8:23pm
Ben Dover

When does john key change the flag to
a pink carnation
a rainbow pattern and
a bright green Koru?
and little bo sheep to replace the Southern Cross
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 8:39pm
Odakyu-sen

Ed,

Here’s a discussion of the likely (alternative) reality of war kicking off in 1938.
http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=136102&highlight=1938

It begins: “First of all we would have to ensure that military doesn’t coup Hitler. They have to be somewhat convinced that war will not be a disaster. This could be done by strong evidence of wide uprising in Sudetenland by German militia and in Slovakia by Slovaks.
Another point required would be the willingness of Stalin to invade. In OTL he wanted capitalists to fight among each other before communists would take over. He has to be convinced that this won’t happen. To do that we would require Britain and France doing nothing aggressive in Czechoslovak war. This isn’t difficult, they didn’t do much during invasion of Poland, and if Nazis show the conflict as internal in beginning, then France and Britain would restrain themselves from declaring war.
Seeing Germany weakened a bit from the fighting, Soviets could take risk to neutralise Poland and opt for takeover of its Eastern territory.
Such an invasion would spark defensive treaty from Romania and push Poles into alliance with Germany which Hitler still pursued in 1938. Slovaks and Hungarians would also be part of this alliance together with Italy.
While Germany doesn’t have the resources of Soviet Union it had in OTL, it probably has access to western markets for a year or so before France and Britain decide to be more active in countering the threat. Also access to Romanian oil is granted, and Italy if it plays cards right would serve as intermediary for buying western resources.
While German army is not in top condition, Red Army is weakened by purges and invasion of Poland would be difficult due to better defences in the Polish east, riddled with swamps, thick forests and marshlands, as well as keeping eye on Romanian border. I would expect the Poles and Romanians to initially repel the Soviet offensive to a more stable front line that would serve as point of restarted hostilities in spring of 1939.”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 17, 2014 10:32pm
Ben Dover

(alternative) reality of war
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 18, 2014 7:47pm
Ben Dover

HERE IS SOMETHING ELSE TO PONDER

NZ WW1 EXPERTS

The Year (Apr 23, 2012) approx)
Jock Anderson
was putting the boot into Aussie Diggers

they were reburying with religious rights (in France) some who
went into combat against
“Adolph Hitlers” Regiment the List Regiment in Fromelles 1916

July 2012
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-24/brown-australian-soldiers-given-their-names-back/4148666

Some Australian Families took 90+ years and three generation to uncover the truth and their loved ones.

Attended the ceremony at the Cobbers Statue

You want to be more careful about joking about these things people are still being located and reburied.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 18, 2014 8:38pm
Ben Dover

YEAH MATE IF WW1 was a BAR FIGHT

YOU’D BE DECKED AND ON THE FLOOR SPITTING YOUR TEETH OUT

YOU PEOPLE DON”T KNOW SH*T ABOUT ANZAC HISTORY DO YOU

Too Busy chasing sheep and changing your flag
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 19, 2014 9:59pm
Daigotsu

This is about 15 years old, although originally it was plain text
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 20, 2014 10:12am
mikenmild

Yes, someone above noted it was from a Ben Elton novel.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 20, 2014 10:18am
Ben Dover

Where does JOCK ANDERSON work now?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 20, 2014 9:11pm

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« I suspect they don’t live in rural areas

General Debate 17 March 2014 »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.4K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Top Stories

General Debate 21 November 2024
General Debate 22 November 2024
The progressive NZ media
Imagine a different scenario
Great progress
What do NZers think of the Mongrel Mob and Black Power
Home detention for meth dealing
Hot off the Press: Term 3 School Attendance Data
Judge gets it right
A cunning plan?

Recent Posts

The $800,000 lotto draw for researchers 22 November 2024
General Debate 22 November 2024 22 November 2024
A cunning plan? 22 November 2024
Hot off the Press: Term 3 School Attendance Data 21 November 2024
Great progress 21 November 2024
Judge gets it right 21 November 2024
Imagine a different scenario 21 November 2024
The progressive NZ media 21 November 2024
What do NZers think of the Mongrel Mob and Black Power 21 November 2024
General Debate 21 November 2024 21 November 2024
Home detention for meth dealing 21 November 2024
A good top cop 20 November 2024

Recent Comments

The $800,000 lotto draw for researchers
Cassandra
General Debate 22 November 2024
Jack5
General Debate 22 November 2024
MCōs
General Debate 22 November 2024
Paulus
General Debate 22 November 2024
All_on_Red
General Debate 22 November 2024
cmm
General Debate 22 November 2024
Steve Otto(North Shore)
General Debate 22 November 2024
sirknz
General Debate 22 November 2024
PurplePen
General Debate 22 November 2024
trout
General Debate 22 November 2024
sirknz
General Debate 22 November 2024
Paulus
General Debate 22 November 2024
sirknz
General Debate 22 November 2024
Taieri
General Debate 22 November 2024
Paulus

Links

"Seymour is only doing openly what M?ori nationalists and their Pakeha allies have been doing, quietly for the past 50 years."
Not PC
Sharp departure in child poverty approach
Point of Order
Continuous Process Improvement
No Minister
New Zealand government urged to back ICC arrest warrants for Israeli leaders without equivocation
The Daily Blog
Popuphobia’s Javier Milei Problem
Utopia
Woman of the day
Hompaddock
Open mike 22/11/2024
The Standard
Drawn
No Right Turn
The transgender agenda sunk Kamala
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
What does “reciprocity” mean in New Zealand laws?
Croaking Cassandra
A Day of Reckoning
NZCPR
This will not end well
Offsetting Behaviour
Top 14 Predictions for Round 10
Stats Chat
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

© 2003-2024 David Farrar

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d

%d