Campfire Chat - General DiscussionsThis is a forum for posting discussion topics, questions, current events, and anything else you'd like to chat about. Please post serious Civil War History threads in appropriate History Forums.
When you think about it, the sniper has always been a despiccable sort -- unless he was on your side.
During the Revolutionary War the guy with his .36 Kentucky Rifle could nail a squirrel anywhere within eyesight. During the UnCivil War, the guy who could shoot was placed in the front. There he could drop artillery horses as well as artillerymen.
There is much talk about today's .50 sniper rifle. Then, they were using larger. But today's ultimate hand-held, man-directed round is the .50. It will reach out to a mile and is limited only by the eyes and skill of the man who uses it.
Ain't technology wonderful?
ken
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Just saw the article indicating that the we're unfortunately down to the last surviving doughboy. Passing of a generation.
Did a quick wikipedia search for WWI veterans and they're still listed. Most countries are down to their last one or two. France is going to have a state funeral for the last one, but I wonder if that will apply to the Alsatian who fought for France in WWI, but Germany in WWII (his son died in the Waffen SS)
Saw a bit on that as well, CW. The man was 107 or 108 and he was said to be the last. I'll figure that there are another one or two out there. The one I miss is the one who was frequently interviewed on the History Channel many years back.
It won't be long before we're looking at the last WWII vet.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
I've been watching a documentary on the Military Channel each morning this week about World War 1. been a long time since I took a class on it in college (15 years) and decided to read up on it again.
I picked up Keegan's book, any others you suggest? I read Guns of August as part of the college course I took.
I always felt it a shame that WW1 got so little attention in books and TV yet WW2 gets (IMO) more then it deserves WW2 has been rehashed way too many times.
For a deeper insight, anything by Hew Strachan. His "The First World War" is perhaps the best primer on the subject, and he's written several more detailed books on the subject.
Paddy Griffith is about to publish a history too, which should be excellent. He also wrote the most detail (geeky) book on small unit tactics in that war.
Also check out 'The Great War, The Standard History of the All-Europe Conflict' - its blatant pro-Allied propaganda, but that is what makes it interesting. Its almost comical....
General wisdom tells us that WWI laid the seeds for WWII and the other ill of the 20th century. Many believe Pres. Wilson ended the war to soon and this is the stone left unturned the leads to all the other ills from WWI.
The Germans never accepted the fact they lost the war for the German army was still in France when the armistice was signed. In the 1920's Hitler use this one little fact to stir up Nationalism and blame the left for Germany's losing the war. He rode this fact into being a Chancellor and to discredit any opposition from the left.
It is said it would have taken One Million American lives not counting the French or British lives to push the German army all the way back to Berlin and total defeat.
If the Germans would have experienced total defeat their would have been no Hitler and Germany would not have been the catalyst of WWII. They would have been humble by their defeat just as the Confederacy was and as Japan and Germany were from WWII.
The question is: Should America have lost One million lives and pushed Germany into total defeat and avoid the ills form WWI?
Knowing the history of the 20th century would you have order our army forward or taken the Armistice?
Up to the challenge.....
__________________
"States Rights are about States Wrongs" - Jesse Jackson
IMO (with 20/20 hind sight) Germany, should have been invaded and occupied, before the Armistice and it is highly unlikely that it would have cost a million American lives to have done so.
Historically, the German Army was disintegrating as it retreated and revolution was growing in homeland.
After, the Kaiser abdicated and fled the country, the provisional gov't was reluctant to accept the allied armistice, but was forced to it, by the defeatest Generals of the military forces, who convinced them that surrender was necessary, forcing the civilian gov't to accept the responsibility for the surrender, while the Generals could pretend the Military had been 'stabbed in the back' by cowardly civilians.
First off, yes the Germans were still in France, but they were definitely moving backwards the last 3 months of the war. The Germans had no hope of stemming that tide at that point.
It's just impossible for the Allied leaders to know that what they did but not invading Germany would have resulted in WW2. I don't think any of the Allied countries had the fight left in them to continue to chew up men left and right to get to Berlin. In the 1917-18 winter, the British had not replenished their losses with new recruits because they were really growing tired of the war and the losses they were taking were not sitting well at home. I don't think Wilson could've made the case to incur those high of losses either.
After 4 years of basically a stalemate, taking the chance that you might be able to get to Berlin was overriden by the sure thing which was just to stop now.
Also, Hitler's entire premise was not based on the fact that the German army was still in France, the major crutch of his rise was the terms of the treaty and how it drove Germany into financial ruin with the reparations that were required.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Jamieva! 
Linear Mode
