Truck Month Textbook Trade In Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc $5 Albums Fire TV with 4k Ultra HD Mother's Day Gifts Shop now Amazon Gift Card Offer TL256 TL256 TL256  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Fire, Only $39.99 Kindle Paperwhite UniOrlando ReadyRide Bikes from Diamondback SnS
Customer Discussions > History forum

THE FIRST WORLD WAR - who wants to talk about it?

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 858 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 9, 2013 9:17:25 AM PDT
Debunker says:
I know what you mean, but I think John Lane and Susanna and some others feel it's important not to let the lies posted by the lowlifes you mention go unchallenged.

Posted on Apr 9, 2013 8:19:47 AM PDT

!7 threads on Israel, Jews, and Zionism, interesting topics to be sure ... but 17

I think one and all. it is time to stop responding to Al (Bundy), Woodruff (puppy), LAD (A-Ƕɷɩɇ). and their venomous spleen filled ilk on the other side. It is time to cut them off, and simply not respond. C'mon guys! Don't play the game.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 4, 2013 7:40:21 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Mar 4, 2013 10:08:18 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 4, 2013 6:49:21 PM PST
Woodruff says:
I'm struggling to remember the book where this was explained. It will come to me eventually.

Posted on Mar 4, 2013 4:45:11 PM PST
I didn't know about the offer to forgive debts. Thanks. KGL

Posted on Mar 4, 2013 2:58:27 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 5, 2013 6:30:29 AM PST
Woodruff says:
this book was mentioned in another forum:
The Dönme: Jewish Converts, Muslim Revolutionaries, and Secular Turks

I had not paid much attention to Shabbatei Zvi, thinking he was merely a religious phenomenon within Judaism. But his conversion to Islam created a political group, the Donme, inflecting dual-converso Jewish practices and perquisites into Ottoman Turkish Islam

The Dönme: Jewish Converts, Muslim Revolutionaries, and Secular Turks

Of course, Jews who were banished from Andalusia were welcomed by Ottoman Turks, so we should be aware that Jews were numerous in the Ottoman empire, which zionist Jews later sought to possess a piece of -- Theodor Herzl negotiated with Sultan Abdulhamid for over ten years, attempting to persuade the Sultan to give Jews Ottoman Palestine in exchange for 'forgiveness' of Ottoman debts.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 4, 2013 7:55:41 AM PST
Nationalism is rooted in in culture and will not be eradicated within the next 500 years if ever.

As for post 1980's American militarism. I am not happy. Not happy at all. Realpolitik aside, not happy.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 4, 2013 7:26:08 AM PST
yes, the Young Turks took over in 1908-09, and a new faction of the Young Turks pulled off a coup in 1913--Enver Pasha, Djemal Pasha, and Talaat Pasha. Enver, a general, was War Minister and hero-worshipped the Kaiser, imitating the moustache. In the beginning, the Young Turks preached, as you say, an Ottoman identity that included all citizens, not just Turkish Moslems. But that ideal was, or soon became, window dressing; the three rulers were pretty brutal--it was they who carried out the Armenian massacres of 1915. (The earlier Young Turks had carried out Macedonian massacres in 1911.) The 1913-18 Young Turks wanted a modern Army, but not democracy or toleration of non-Turkish ethnic groups. Germany wanted influence in Turkey as did Britain, France, and Russia. By 1914, Germans were running much of the Turkish Army, while Britain in theory ran the Navy and the French the police force. Germans hoped to exploit the natural resources along the Berlin to Baghdad railroad, rather than grab Turkish territory outright (which the Russians wanted to do). Germans did much to modernize the Turkish Army. Britain, after 1907 friendly to Russia, resented German ambitions in the Middle East more than fearing Russia. Before WWI started, the various ambitions were reconciled among the great powers, but the War reopened all the conflicting greedy ambitions.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 4, 2013 5:40:47 AM PST
ipsofacto says:
At any rate, the two bloodiest conflicts in history, WW1 and WW2, were rooted in nationalism and militarism. Eradicate both and we've come a long way in staving off WW3.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 4, 2013 5:29:15 AM PST
R. Largess says:
If I'm correct, before the war Turkey was taken over by the "Young Turks", a group of military officers (?) who were committed to modernizing and reforming the Ottoman empire and thus preserving it. Part of their plan I think was creating an "Ottoman" identity which included the various ethnic groups of the Empire (?). I wonder if WWI had not intervened if part of their goal could have been achieved? I understand that her continued independence was largely dependent on Russian and British ambitions balancing each other off. But perhaps Germany was coming to see that an independent Ottoman Empire could afford her much the same markets and sphere for investment as colonies did for the other powers, and might have supported the Empire's modernization?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 3, 2013 7:06:46 PM PST
Woodruff says:
Michael J. Mason,

The war activity in Ottoman Empire is oft overlooked. But imo that was the real prize/purpose of the war.

Posted on Mar 3, 2013 6:51:15 PM PST
I should have added that my research was done in 1962-63. Also that the Hashemites lost the Hejaz in war against the Saudis in the 1920s. Karl

Posted on Mar 3, 2013 6:28:36 PM PST
Woodruff: I looked in David Fromkin, A Peace to End All Peace (1989), which is the modern scholarly "bible" concerning the Middle East in the period 1914-23. (My dissertation was on European diplomacy concerning Turkey 1914-23; thus my research was almost 30 years older than his and, besides, only touched upon Sykes-Picot). Anyway, Fromkin confirmed what I said in my previous post: Sykes and Picot were vague, their decisions were conveyed to the Arabs piecemeal and unofficially, and they (Sykes/Picot) knew the Arabs would not accept what Britain and France had planned. The boundaries between British and French spheres of influence and outright control were left uncertain. Moreover, hardly was the ink dry before British and French began to re-interpet Sykes-Picot almost out of existence, because of the changing fortunes of war, plus the entry of Italy and the US, the collapse of Russia, and the question of Zionism in Palestine. Again, the Arabs knew about the (vague) Allied commitments to the Zionists and many Arabs were determined to resist, although the Hashemites were, on the surface, willing to accept Jewish migration into Palestine. But many Brits and French were hostile to the Balfour Declaration, as well as to each other. On the matter of King Saud--King Hussein suspected that British India was dealing with Saud, and there was violence between those two sets of Arabs after Turkey surrendered. Ultimately, the French grabbed all of Syria and Lebanon and conceded Palestine and Mesopotamia to the Brits, including Mosul. The Brits set up the Hashemites as kings of Jordan and Iraq. I couldn't find anything about a law suit concerning the Sultan and oil. Can you provide more details? Karl

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 3, 2013 6:18:19 PM PST

Yeah, it's a real sad one. You can see it heading down the train and you just ask what the hell is this all about ... I understand WWII, not WWI, it was, as you say, truly pointless.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 3, 2013 5:28:30 PM PST
Woodruff says:
thanks, Karl G. Larew.
I look forward to your next post.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 3, 2013 10:53:47 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 3, 2013 10:56:48 AM PST
There was never a more pointless war then The Great War!4yrs of trench warfare fighting over nothing !There is a good book called Mother of Eagles,about Manfred and Lothar's,von Richthofen mother,gives a good view of home life in Germany during the war!

Posted on Mar 3, 2013 8:30:35 AM PST
Steelers fan says:
With the twentieth century, family ties regarding rulers were shown to be, essentially, worthless in preventing bloodshed on a massive scale. This would seem to be pretty much unprecedented in history. Her Majesty would have been very sad indeed. Albert, too.

Posted on Mar 3, 2013 8:27:31 AM PST
Steelers fan says:
They weren't full cousins, but George, Nicky, and Bill looked enough alike to be brothers. George and Nicky could have been taken for identical twins. Sad.

Posted on Mar 3, 2013 8:22:59 AM PST
Steelers fan says:
Yeah, that says it.

"We are not amused".

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 3, 2013 7:47:43 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 3, 2013 7:49:05 AM PST
<<Victoria's grandchildren (and others) were drawn into murdering each other>>

According to Michael Balfour, when the Austro-Serb conflict expanded into a European war, the Kaiser is reported to have said: "To think that George and Nicky should have played me false! If my grandmother [Queen Victoria] had been alive, she would never have allowed it." [Michael Balfour, "The Kaiser and his Times," Houghton Mifflin (1964) p. 355 The Kaiser and His Times (Norton Library (Paperback)) ]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 3, 2013 7:32:20 AM PST
<<McCullough commented in that speech at Heinz center that "the Franco Prussian war is what started everything!">>

The British historian A. J. P. Taylor expressed the following startling opinion: "If the treaty of San Stefano had been maintained, both the Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary might have survived to the present day." [ The Struggle for Mastery in Europe: 1848-1918 (Oxford History of Modern Europe) Page 253],_1878

Posted on Mar 2, 2013 8:26:29 PM PST
I studied this topic while writing my doctoral dissertation in 1964 and subsequent reading. To the best of my recollection (and I'll do some more digging and send you some more info tomorrow), it was like this: in 1914-17, British gov't in India was responsible for protecting the oilfields in Abadan, Persia, hence had to secure Mesopotamia; so they let King Saud (a nominal vassal of the Sultan at best) know that Britain would sponsor a Saudi grab of Arab lands belonging to the Turks. But British gov't in Egypt wanted Hussein's Hashemite Arabs' help in conquering Palestine, etc., so got Hussein to rebel against Turks in Hejaz area (which had the holy cities Medina and Mecca); promised Hussein a Arab areas in Mesopotamia and Syria and Palestine. So both Saud and Hussein knew that Britain and France would regard Mesopotamia, Syria, Lebanan, and Palestine as their spheres of influence but Arabs could be autonomous. But which Arabs? Brits in India and Brits in Egypt were not coordinating or didn't care about the conflict of promises. All Arabs were told that their rights and interests in Palestine would be safe even though Jews would be allowed in. The oil fields in Mosul were conquered by Brits late in the War and were argued over by Brits, French, and US in the peace conference as late as 1923 but finally went to British mandate in Mesopot. KGL

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 2, 2013 7:52:09 PM PST
Woodruff says:
Karl G Larew, any more information about this:

" What the Brits did not reveal to Hussein's Arabs was that they had promised a lot of Arab land to the Saudis. "

How did the lawsuit over the Turkish Sultan's oil-rich holdings in Mesopotamia figure into whatever the Brits promised to the Arabs?


Posted on Mar 2, 2013 4:48:14 PM PST
Belgium was neutral until Germany invaded it. As for Balfour:apparently what he meant was a "home" for the Jewish people, not a sovereign state; left vague on purpose, and not binding on future British cabinets. The Arabs knew about Balfour's declaration and didn't like it but couldn't say they were being tricked. Same with Sykes-Picot's promise of Syria/Lebanon coasts to France and French influence in the Syrian hinterland (and British overwhelming "influence" in Mesopotamia; these commitments/claims became known to the Arabs in 1916-17, not long after they were made. What the Brits did not reveal to Hussein's Arabs was that they had promised a lot of Arab land to the Saudis.

Posted on Mar 2, 2013 2:43:05 PM PST
Diplomacy is an interesting game. I had a teacher use it as teaching tool in high school to explain portions of pre-WWI Europe.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 35 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the History forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
436 Mar 8, 2016
JFK Assassination Part V 7271 7 minutes ago
Son of Yehudi Menuhin Questions Holocaust 177 7 minutes ago
Trump assassination I 78 12 minutes ago
The Hindenburg 7 18 minutes ago
THE Luger/P38 ...what happened to IT? 14 28 minutes ago
USN getting serious about drones 31 35 minutes ago
We have defeated the wrong enemy 69 1 hour ago
A Place For Pro-Israel Posters IV 392 1 hour ago
The Wilderness and the Civil War 11 4 hours ago
Novels set in brothels? 2 5 hours ago
History of the Palestinian Nation (Part IV) 7443 6 hours ago

This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  94
Total posts:  858
Initial post:  Nov 4, 2009
Latest post:  Apr 9, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 14 customers

Search Customer Discussions