Skip to comments.French and German leaders mark WW1 anniversary
Posted on 08/03/2014 3:08:58 PM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
The French and German presidents have commemorated the 100th anniversary of Germany's declaration of war on France on 3 August 1914.
Francois Hollande and his German counterpart, Joachim Gauck, made a joint tribute in Alsace to soldiers killed during World War One.
They were to lay the first stone for a memorial at Vieil Armand cemetery.
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.com ...
Any Americans invited? My grandfather fought that war, too.
Germany, France, Britain, Russia and Italy will never recover from the irreplacable genetic losses they incurred between 1914-1945. It was the beginning of the end of European civilization.
The ceremony is commemorating the initiation of hostilities in 1914.
The U.S. anniversary would be in April since we didn't get into the war until April 6, 1917.
On average, roughly 10000 men per day, seven days a week, 52 weeks per year, for over four years.
And the men they were losing weren’t “the halt and the lame”.
There approximately 10 million military deaths during WW1.
Just under 117k were Americans.
British Empire ~1M
German Empire ~2M
Russian Empire ~2M
Ottoman Empire ~0.5M
I understand. But the war started on the 14th but of course this may be a special date I’m unaware of. And I didn’t mean to forget our British brothers who suffered so much.
2017 would be an appropriate time to show up for the American tribute to WWI, madam. 2014 is for the Europeans only.
If they’d ask why we’re late, you can say “Retreat? Hell, we just got here!”.
One hundred years ago this evening, Sir Edward Grey remarked “The lamps are going out all over Europe, and we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime.”
The next morning Germany invaded Belgium on their way to France, thus drawing England into the war.
Sir Edward was right, in a limited way.
Not only were the lamps not re-lit in his lifetime, they will not be relit in his grandchildren’s grandchildren’s lifetime.
And it’s said that the wine crops were wonderful in the years after the war because of the fertilization of the blood and body of so many men. We often forget what the French went through - which tired them out for WWII.
Ah, such beautiful and intriguing words. Now I know why we’re commemorating this sad day in history. Do our children and grandchildren even give a damn? Have we taught them?
Even proportionately, Germany suffered more than France.
Didn’t seem to tire them out for Round II.
Mine too—but it was almost three years before we started. Our part in the offensive was relatively short—but the casualties were horrific. I cannot imagine that kind of loss today.
Nope—just pissed them off.
Actually it was France that was bled white, particularly at Verdun. The French Army mutinied twice during the war. In 1915 and 1917. The loss of so many soldiers was the prime reason France built the Maginot Line.
I wonder who many of us here at FR had relatives who fought? My grandfather enlisted at 15 - he lied about his age and no one at that time gave a damn.
A great deal of the war was fought on French territory if my memory serves correct - wrecking the infrastructure, lives, farms and the mental health of the poor people who endured it. Check out Grand Illusion if you don’t believe me.
The Germans instigated the war in my opinion (the Kaiser) and they suffered the same way they suffered in WWII. You don’t feel sorry for the Krauts, do you?
Leave it to you, my friend, to point out the horrific suffering of the French during the 1st World War.
The Germans instigated the war, lost the war and as a consequence suffered greater. Including massive reparations. Yet, the Germans did not allow that to eradicate their warrior class or martial spirit. That came 30 years later.
Statement of fact not empathy.
They started empire building a century late because they could not unify. And build a world class Navy.
That is not the fault of the British,French,Spanish, Portuguese,Belgians,or Dutch. Nor even the Russians and Ottomans.
More on the lights going out:
In reality it was a fight amongst cousins who happened to be monarchs. And to me anyway, underscores the degeneracy of a monarchy.
“The Hun is either at your throat or at your feet’’.— Winston Churchill.
“When the next war comes in Europe it will come from some damn silly thing in the Balkans’’.— Otto Von Bismark
And what is Europe post monarchy ?
“In Flanders fields the poppies blow/between the crosses row on row/that mark our place and in the sky/the larks/still singing/bravely fly. We are the dead/short days ago/we lived/felt dawn/saw sunset glow/loved and were loved/and now we lie/in Flanders fields.’’
It hasn’t started any more wars in about 70 odd years.
It started WWII without the help of monacrchs.
And Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) has stopped any hot wars since.
At the start of WWII the monarchies were symbolic and had no real power whatsoever. Kings or Emperors had absolutely nothing to do with the start of hostilities of WWII.
And forms of government have had nothing to do with preventing war in Europe since.
How is “royal blood” bigoted? That is stupid nonsensical leftist talk.
Western Culture was developed in the time of monarchies.
I would much rather live in Imperial Vienna than in Republican Berlin.
Ooh...now I’m gonna cry! So sad - all those lost boys. All that destroyed infrastructure, farms and one million war horses dead and the ones that survived sold off for horsemeat...
Winnie was quite accurate in summing up folks.
Gee, I thought our founding fathers were pretty anti-monarchy. Were they leftists, too?!
The King of Italy allowed Mussolini to form a government . We know what that led to.The King of Spain abdicated in 1936 opening the door to The Spanish Revolution, often called ‘’the dress rehearsal to WW2. And lets not forget Japans version of a monarchy, it’s emperor who gave his blessing to Japanese depredations in China and we know what that led to. Read a little more history. To me the idea that someone’s blood is different than mine and then structures an entire society and form of government based on this to me is bigoted. Western culture did indeed flourish under monarchies but for centuries their people had little or nothing to say in the affairs of their societies. In any true monarchy you have what ever freedoms you might be granted at the whim of a monarch.
The King of Italy had no power to stop the Fascist.
He only had symbolic power. The only difference the Italian King would have made my making a defiant symbolic opposition not asking Mussolini to from a government is that a lot of Italian bureaucrats and Italian Royal family members would have been murdered a la the Bolsheviks.
If the King said “NO” Mussolini would not have said “oh Well” and gone home to retirement.
The King did not “allow” the Fascist to come to power any more than the typical wealthy Italian. Less so than the leaders of other Italian political parties. Aristocrat or not.
The King of Spain was driven from his Thrown by Spanish Communist and Anarchist. The Communist and Anarchist won a landslide election on April 12 1930 and proclaimed a Republic on April 14. King Alfonso was told that the military would not fight for him because by this point no significant numbers of Europeans believed in the Divine Right of Kings. So he fled.
This is exactly what you propose should happen in all cases correct? Democracy and Republicanism. Again the King could have chosen to die and have his family share the same fate.
In Japan. Hirohito had more of a quasi religious role. Tojo made all the political decisions. The Emperor just parroted them. Much like the Queen of England Empress of India. Tojo never would have dared remove the Emperor because of these quasi-religious implications. But having one Emperor die and be replaced by another. Or locked away in a tower while Tojo made all the proclamations in his name would not be far fetched. But the Japanese are inherently different than Europeans.
Monarchies were established long before the concept of “royal blood.” Monarchies were established by brute force of will by a military commander and his power to leave political power to his sons or children. “Royal Blood” was a justification concocted much later for transfer of power not the established of societies.
Competition between small Western Monarchies for labor and entrepreneurship is what led to Western notions of freedom. And Monarchs slowly giving aristocrats rights in custom then in law. Then down to common folks. That is what separated Western Societies from Eastern Tyrannies.
By the time of WWI there were no true monarchies. Modern Britain is a republic in everything but name. Calling it an Empire or Kingdom is almost an ironic joke.
You should read a little more history with a little more common sense and perspective.
BTW That Monarchies transfer power by inheritance is self-evident. Calling the concept bigoted is parroting the Left and with it all the nonsensical implications.
BTW, have you a soft spot for monarchies or something? You remember don’t you how we, America, came to be, right?
Monarchies, particularly, the British Monarchy are part of who WE are as Americans.
Americans did not appear out of thin air in Plymouth.
We have a past that many date back to the Magna Carta but that stretches far beyond that.
Our Ancestors are not evil because they are not exactly like us. Nor stupid or bigoted.
While we all admire the Magna Carta we also know that King John was forced to it.
I have nothing against the monarchy of England, in fact, my tag line refers directly to my favorite king, but I’m not blind to their history. They shed rivers of blood in their time.
There were no real monarchies during the First World War? Barbara Tuchman - no slouch - places the war directly onto the shoulders of the Kaiser. Tsar Nicholas still had a tiny bit of power as I remember. His bad use of it didn’t help him while revolution was shaking his throne. I think it was World War I that DESTROYED the fate of the monarchies which was not a bad thing.