PDA

View Full Version : Lest we forget 100 years later...



camdigger
04-24-2015, 02:22 PM
100 years ago, the land assault on the Gallipoli peninsula started.

There has been a dawn service held on the beach the Anzacs landed on that day. Here is some footage from last year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stb0asxF6bM

The cliffs in the back ground were what they were supposed to take in the morning before dashing across the peninsula by evening. Needless to say, things did not go as planned.

jep24601
04-24-2015, 04:40 PM
Ataturk's words:

http://aphs.worldnomads.com/stowaway/53/gallipoli5a.jpg

Forrest Addy
04-24-2015, 04:46 PM
Winston Churchill was one of the architects of Gallipoli and was one of the designers of the Middle East after WWI and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. We are even now paying the price of folly in establishing the present boarders in the Middle East. Contrast Churchill in later life as the PM of Great Brittian in WWII. What a difference 30 years experience can make in the evolution of a great man.

I recall a series some years ago on WW I on the History Channel. One of the regular commentators was an aged WWI vet, Winston LaRouche. He was clear-headed and personable at 95 plus his remarks on Galopoli from a prepspective of a young man in Army training were memorable. As I recall it was: "The Turks are doomed"; followed by "What the hell!"; and in the end silent anxiety in an Army barracks full of ignorant farm boys soon to be off - possibly to their own Gallipoli. He spun fascinating commentary that brought events 85 years before into immediacy as we then ventured into Iraq.

When I was a boy my neighbor was Art Perteet, a veteren of WW I. He was gassed (his left arm and hand still bore scars), I remember him commenting on the incredible loss and waste, lives thrown away by a leadership who must be seen to do "something". That must be a driving force in human nature: if you don't know what to do, do something wrong and then you'll have something to fix. The blame is always less for wrong action than it is for no action.

In 1915 the war was static in a trenchline from Holland to Switzerland so a new front was a tempting prospect for the firey elements of British goverment. And the result was Gallipoli. Never despise the enemy as a means of promoting a campaign.

I quess the lesson is listen to the old farts.

DATo
04-25-2015, 06:20 AM
Gallipoli, Isandlwana, Balaclava, Jutland, The Somme, Market Garden - brave men dying because the qualities of leadership were, first and foremost, determined by blue-blooded, aristocratic rank rather than by tactical acumen.

Case in point: General John French (1st Earl of Ypres), the initial supreme commander of the British Expeditionary Force in WWI (6 divisions, mind you) was so incompetent, contentious and disagreeable that he was finally relieved of command, and in typical British style was knighted - for his incompetence one can only assume. He was replaced by General Douglas Haig (1st Earl Haig) the principle architect of The Battle Of The Somme, a debacle considered ... " The worst day in the history of the British Army" 60,000 casualties measured in a matter of hours which accomplished absolutely nothing. The string of knighthoods, awards and glowing citations reads into next week where Haig is concerned as well.

I salute the men who served and fell at Gallipoli.

EDIT:
Of course, in my own country, during the Civil War, the Union was led by an equally inept group of generals so perhaps I shouldn't cast asparagus.

Brave men, regardless of the land of their birth, who risk everything for their country's welfare deserve better than this.

loose nut
04-25-2015, 05:02 PM
The Newfoundland Regiment was at Gallipoli, survived that nightmare just to be sent to Europe. On the first day of the Somme there were 778 men in the regiment, all volunteers for mother England. 15 minutes after they went over the top they had 68 men left. Good men slaughtered by incompetent generals.

tmarks11
04-26-2015, 09:58 PM
Of course, in my own country, during the Civil War, the Union was led by an equally inept group of generals so perhaps I shouldn't cast asparagus.

If Stonewall Jackson had not been killed by a confused confederate picket, the Civil War would have gone much longer... and maybe the outcome different. Robert E Lee was lost without Stonewall Jackson to implement his tactical genius.

Even the best of the Union (US Grant, a drunkard) and Sherman (possibly insane) were not even close. Little Napoleon (General McClellan) was one of the best assets of the Confederate army... despite being a Union General, for awhile in charge of all the Union forces, and than in charge of the Army of the Potomac. It didn't help that Lincoln thought himself a tactical genius.

Alistair Hosie
04-27-2015, 03:15 PM
I think we must surely all agree all wars are futile and costly in terms of human life.As you know I am a born pacifist who does believe in defending my country from attack.Maybe that makes the word pacifist redundant? I don't know anyway.All wars imho are madness,and my heart goes out to those who become cannon fodder,such as in ww1 and subsequent madness.Let us all be reminded of the madness of it all and remember all those souls who were massacred as a result and their wives mothers and children left behind.All so avoidably sad, sad, sad.Alistair

MaxHeadRoom
04-27-2015, 04:29 PM
Sobering data:
It is estimated that during the short period of the 20th century, between 150 and 200 million humans lost their lives at the hands of other humans due to wars, genocide, purges etc, which is apparent it is part of our evolutionary make up, I have always felt can be attributed essentially to Human Tribalism.
The 21st century is shaping up no different.
I live in a city that just built (at great cost) a human right museum, although their intentions may be noble, I think they are flogging a dead horse!
Max.

oil mac
04-27-2015, 05:09 PM
It is a very sad and sobering thought to me, that my uncle lost a leg at the Dardanelle campaign, this had a profound effect upon him for the rest of his life My father was in France 1916-1918, He also was effected and spoke of the stupidity of the high command, for whom he did not have a high regard. It is absolutely amazing that as the ordinary soldiers bled and died for their country The industrialists got richer and richer by the day.
I am always overawed and from a technical standpoint and thoroughly fascinated by the big arms works & the high skills developed But and it is a big BUT, Thoroughly saddened as to the sad reason for this effort.

Fast forward to the present our past "Great" leader & wonderful, & suddenly mega rich Socialist Tony Blair, led the U.K. into five wars, And this debacle has caused nothing but misery for many of our ex service men and the folks of the lesser tribes in Syria and Iraq.

rock_breaker
04-28-2015, 03:15 AM
During the day when Inter- Continental Ballistic Missiles were the news topic of the day and even now we can "kill the world over many times" but we are unable to feed the starving people. Something is not right.

Ray

mike4
04-28-2015, 04:16 AM
A lot of good men slaughtered by incompetent cowards who were never taken to task for the crimes they committed .
It is time that the archives were made public domain and the real truth was told about the so called great leaders .

Michael

Abner
04-28-2015, 07:37 AM
My father in law was in the army, never saw active combat was always a rahrah go military ready to serve and die for my country kind of guy. My brother was in the army, served in Vietnam, never talked about it, his wife pulled shrapnel out of him as it worked its way to the surface. I talked to him 1 time about it, he killed people. He said the rage was just under his skin. He died a few year ago from pancreatic cancer. Seems he was exposed to agent orange too.

I have no idea of answers. It is obvious there are those to whom war makes profits and could care less about the suffering.

I offer that any war that needs to be fought should require the sons and daughters of all the politicians and defense contractors go to the front lines. I know it will never happen today but in WW ll many unlikely people did, actors, sports figures, kids of politicians.

Spin Doctor
04-28-2015, 09:10 AM
Not the typical "Hollywood war hero"
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Morris_(American_actor)
For all the 101st Airbornes their were numerous units like this
http://www.auburn.edu/~noekenn/173fa.html
Unsung units that did their part

fjk
04-28-2015, 10:19 AM
Since it _is_ the 100th anniversary of WWI in general I've set myself a project to read a bunch of books on the war. Some so far

- The Guns of August ... Barbara Tuchman. A classic, but only really goes into the immediate stuff leading up to the war (basically, June & July of 1914, as well as the first month, August.)

- Dreadnaught - Robert Massie, talks about the naval arms race between the UK and Germany.

- Castles of Steel -- sequel to Dreadnaught ... naval history of the war. Both of these are pretty good reads.

- Rules of the Game - Andrew Gordon -- another naval history of wwi, primarily on the british side, and primarily covering the leadership of the Grand Fleet, Fisher, Beattie & Jellicoe and how they became the officers they were. a good book, but more about them than about "WWI" One of the interesting points that I got out of this book is how much the world changed from when Fisher, Jellicoe & Beattie joined the service to when Jutland was fought ... When they started, it was still "Wooden Ships & Iron Men" (at least some...), muzzle loading cannon, with battles fought (or expected to be fought) at ranges of 100's of yards, and orders and signalling still in the age of Nelson. By Jutland things were very very different.

- July 1914 by Sean McMeekin ... day by day from Sarajevo to the initial battles. Sort of another version of "The Guns of August"

The War That Ended Peace by Margaret MacMillan ... my favorite so far, goes into a lot of the history leading up to the war, from Bismarck's dismissal, the naval arms race, emergence of the treaties, etc, etc, etc.


On the list to read are "Proud Tower" and "1913: In search of hte world before the great war" ... both are apparently about the world before wwi ...


If anyone has any other recommendations, I'd be glad to hear them!

Thanks

Frank

goose
04-28-2015, 10:37 AM
Not sure which is more annoying, arm-chair generals or arm-chair pacifists.

George Bulliss
04-28-2015, 10:52 AM
If anyone has any other recommendations, I'd be glad to hear them!

Thanks

Frank

Thanks for the list. A good one I read last year is The Wolf, Published April 20th 2010 by Free Press.

loose nut
04-28-2015, 11:04 AM
Some sobering WW1 factoids:

The British Empire/Commonwealth had a policy in WW1 to bury soldiers where they fell, usually in a cemetery near the aid station or hospital. It was impossible in those days to repatriate all the fallen. The British Empire has over 16,000 cemeteries (some big some small) around the world just for the WW1 casualties. Canadian soldiers are buried in 700 different cemeteries on the western front.

Many of the grave markers only say "An unknown soldier of the Great War". The actual identities are missing. Identity tags came about after WW1 because of the problems with identifying the dead.

Many cemeteries where over run during the see saw fighting and all the marker blown away so that when the war was over know one knows any more then Pri. *** is buried here but his graves actual position isn't known.

Over half the soldiers killed in WW1 are missing with no grave sites.

Most of the graves were never visited by their families because of the cost and distances that needed to be traveled made it impossible for most in those days.

When you calculate the amount of acreage of farm land taken up by the British Empire, French , German, Russian and US cemeteries from both world wars it would probably feed a lot of hungry people.

On a good note, there is still a war graves common still working to identify the Unknown soldiers even after 100 years.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was watching a show last night about this subject and learned a few things most Canadians don't know about those that served in WW1.

We know that many US citizens joined the Canadian army and fought in the war before the US joined in but there where people from South America, Iceland, Korea And Japan to name a few that also fought in the Canadian army. Enough Japanese Joined up that they were formed into there own units. These people had no obligation and nothing to gain by doing this but still felt the need to join.

Some towns and villages, particularly in Newfoundland, lost all their male population in the battle of the Somme. Many of the surviving wife's didn't remarry and a few of the towns just died out and are now "ghost" towns.

MaxHeadRoom
04-28-2015, 08:28 PM
Some sobering WW1 factoids:

The British Empire/Commonwealth had a policy in WW1 to bury soldiers where they fell, usually in a cemetery near the aid station or hospital. It was impossible in those days to repatriate all the fallen. The British Empire has over 16,000 cemeteries (some big some small) around the world just for the WW1 casualties. Canadian soldiers are buried in 700 different cemeteries on the western front.

Many of the grave markers only say "An unknown soldier of the Great War". The actual identities are missing. Identity tags came about after WW1 because of the problems with identifying the dead.

Many cemeteries where over run during the see saw fighting and all the marker blown away so that when the war was over know one knows any more then Pri. *** is buried here but his graves actual position isn't known.

Most of the graves were never visited by their families because of the cost and distances that needed to be traveled made it impossible for most in those days.

When you calculate the amount of acreage of farm land taken up by the British Empire, French , German, Russian and US cemeteries from both world wars it would probably feed a lot of hungry people.

On a good note, there is still a war graves common still working to identify the Unknown soldiers even after 100 years.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.


I spent some time in Libya, Pre Qaddafi, and visited some of the WWII grave yards maintained by the British war commission, some had head stones going into the desert as far as the eye could see, with the oldest buried there being about 30yrs old. most about 18 up.
Particularly interesting was the German one built like a fort with a entrance wreath dedicated to F.M. Rommel.
I was particularly disturbed on seeing some of the vandalism that occurred in Libya after the recent Arab Spring uprising and saw the destruction of some of the WWII war memorials and graves by the insurgents.
And in light of seeing this, I also wondered what happened to the beautiful Roman and Greek ruins that I visited when I was there, remains of the Roman and Greek empire that still existed.
Fortunately I still have some photo's including some of pre-war monuments left by the Italian occupation of the area under Mussolini and before, that were destroyed by Qaddafi..
Max..

fixerdave
04-29-2015, 11:17 PM
Sobering data:
It is estimated that during the short period of the 20th century, between 150 and 200 million humans lost their lives at the hands of other humans due to wars, genocide, purges etc, which is apparent it is part of our evolutionary make up, I have always felt can be attributed essentially to Human Tribalism.
The 21st century is shaping up no different.
I live in a city that just built (at great cost) a human right museum, although their intentions may be noble, I think they are flogging a dead horse!
Max.

I would say it's a culturally induced perversion of tribally evolved behaviors... Yeah, too many big words... I'll try again. In evolutionary terms, we're a bunch of hunter-gatherers running around pretending to be civilized. But, that "civilization" is just an overlay, what we call 'culture', and it causes a lot of nasty problems.

--- okay, I deleted a very long-winded explanation that doesn't really matter. I'll post it if you want ---

So, we evolved to be social animals because cooperation is supposed to benefit each of us. Alone, we get eaten; together, we eat. That kind of thing. Then we get some guy saying (roughly, I'm not going to look it up) "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country." If you really sit back and think about it... it's totally screwed up. We live together for mutual benefit, not to benefit some abstract concept like "country."

A very long time ago, we lived in little tribes that fought each other for territory. If your tribe was pushed off it's territory, you died. Thus, dieing in battle made sense. If you lost, you died anyway, so why not fight? At least your kids, or your sister and her kids, might survive. That made sense. It doesn't make sense anymore. We don't fight those kinds of wars. The losers don't generally die, their rulers just change. So, what? People willing to die for their way of life... are actually idiots, very dangerous idiots. The world would be better off without them.

Easy to say... but I feel it like everyone else. I think "If the Americans ever invaded (the only ones capable of invading Canada), I'd be out there sniping." But, why? Sure, I live in a great country... I have no desire to move south. But, is it so great that I'd be willing to die to preserve it? Because, you know, I'd be dead. It's pretty hard to enjoy a way of life when you're dead. But, that cultural programming is pounded into us from birth... we're so great! You must sacrifice everything for your nation. It's a lie. My nation lies to me; your nation lies to you. So, we die in battle... for nothing.

There is nothing wrong with Human Tribalism. It's just been perverted by Cultural Nationalism. And, when it comes to that, we're the worst. By "we," I mean European culture and their emigrated colonies, like the US, Canada, and Australia. By some fluke of geography, the cultures that evolved in Europe are by far the most war-mongering on this planet. We pretend we're not, that those other places generate the killers that we have to defend against, but history shows that to be a lie. Somehow, early on, the wars in Europe never really stopped. While the martial Shogunate in Japan ruled for hundreds of years, the Europeans fought "hundred year wars." Somehow, our cultures evolved to total war. Look at WWII. The "warrior Samurai" started WWII flying Zeros, getting 10:1 kill ratios again anything the Americans could put up against them. By the end of the war, the Americans were fielding Warhawks getting 10:1 kill ratios against the Japanese Zeros. You could say it was the bombing that destroyed the Japanese R&D efforts but the Germans, bombed even worse, were fielding combat jets by the end of the war. Their R&D, like other western nations, switched to War-Mode while the Japanese did not. As well, in the end, the Japanese has so few pilots they were sailing carriers with no planes. Canada... CANADA, trained hundreds of thousands of aircrew. What happened is that in Japan the army was at war but the people were just the people doing what they were told to do. In European culture, it's total war. Everyone is at war: the engineers, the factory workers, the farmers... everyone. And, we'll do anything it takes to win.

We tisk-tisk the evil ISIS, and all those other nasty people running around doing those bad things. Ruthless savages, no respect for human life. We have to stop them. But, how many soldiers died in stupid pointless assaults in WWI? We invented poison gas, and on up. They burned some poor pilot alive, we burned entire cities, deliberately, tens of thousands of civilians burned alive, in city after city, over and over again. We're good at it, very good. We invented and built the weapons that can literally bomb the entire planet back to the stone age. And, we're willing to use them if we have to. Even if we lose, we would rather wipe out most of the human race than let someone else win. Better dead than red.

No.

We are not better dead than red. No, No, No, NO, NO, NO!

Alistair is right. Wars are futile. We need to stop this, somehow. We need to get rid of the nation states before they destroy the world. They are not worth dieing for.

That is what we need to remember on days like this. The victories and losses are nothing, but the humans that died fighting for them need to be remembered. They did what they believed was right and they suffered for it. No one should have to suffer like that. It isn't about blaming this leader or that, victory would have just meant the deaths were on the other side in the battle... it's the system, the nations, that are to blame.

It's too late for us, we're too programmed to change. But, don't teach your kids that they live in the best nation on earth. Don't teach them to hate others because of whatever excuse is proffered. Teach them that we live on a little blue planet, together, so we should all figure out how to get along before it's too late.

And, with that, I will end what has to be the most off-topic post I've ever done on this forum (I think),

David...

ironmonger
04-29-2015, 11:47 PM
I have a simple philosophy, however poorly I am able to implement it.
I don't care what you do, as long as you don't do it with my money or in my house.

There is no way that translates to a away to run a nation, but it might make more sense than what we do now. No matter how you decide to 'improve the world' one little guy with a big stick wins against anyone unwilling to physically defend themselves. Just the way it is...

paul

Robin R
04-30-2015, 12:21 AM
Paris 1919, also by Margaret MacMillan. About the post war peace conference, which apart from anything else sowed the seeds for WW2.

loose nut
04-30-2015, 10:41 AM
By some fluke of geography, the cultures that evolved in Europe are by far the most war-mongering on this planet.

Alistair is right. Wars are futile. We need to stop this, somehow. We need to get rid of the nation states before they destroy the world. They are not worth dieing for.

..

You seem to have forgotten about Genghis Kahn who conquered most of the known world, the pre-columbian American Indian cultures (Incas etc) that where unbelievable bloody and brutal and lets not forget the Muslim's, in the olden days that spread their religion by force. Catholics have a lot to answer for also. Europeans are no better or worse then anybody else. We are brutal as a race.

We need to stop war. Fine. Give us a detailed plan on how to do it because nothing has worked so far and not for lack of trying. As the population problem gets worse, wars will just get worse.

We may vary well look back on WW1 and think of how quaint it was and not particularly bad by future standards.

So bend over and get ready to take it. It's coming.

mattthemuppet
04-30-2015, 12:20 PM
I'm just glad I live in an era where I have a choice whether or not I want to fight, a choice I have in a large part because of the choices of others.

MaxHeadRoom
04-30-2015, 01:15 PM
I'm just glad I live in an era where I have a choice whether or not I want to fight,

You may not want to be around when the earth human population crunch comes and available resources will no longer be able to support the population.
Human population is increasing exponentially, and the predicted crunch time is not far off.
This is when you will see tribalism at its worst.
Max.

mklotz
04-30-2015, 01:32 PM
I'm just glad I live in an era where I have a choice whether or not I want to fight, a choice I have in a large part because of the choices of others.

Well, you have "free choice" only if you're old enough to not fall under any conscription law that Congress chooses to make.

Here's an extract from Wikipedia concerning the expansion of the draft made after WWII...


After Pearl Harbor the STSA was further amended (December 19, 1941), extending the term of service to the duration of the war and six months and requiring the registration of all men 18 to 64 years of age. In the massive draft of World War II, 50 million men from 18 to 45 were registered, 36 million classified, and 10 million inducted.

Things would have to get pretty desperate to put old men on the battlefield (think Volksturm) but old guys are going to have lots of expertise that is usable in making the machinery with which the war is fought.

loose nut
04-30-2015, 03:09 PM
In Britain, during WW2, they had so many casualties that 40 + year old men were conscripted for front line combat units. 60 and 70 year old men were sent to home defense units (home guard).

In Sweden, at least in the past, underage boys, old men and those that are physically disabled were the first into combat if Sweden where ever invaded. It is their job to slow the enemy down for 24 hours and allow the army (mostly reservists) time to form up. There survival is not considered important or likely.

If things ever get really bad it could happen to you.

Mattthemuppet, It would seem that you are not old enough to remember the Vietnam war, American boys got drafted and sent to war literally by the millions and treated poorly when they got back.

camdigger
04-30-2015, 03:58 PM
In Britain, during WW2, they had so many casualties that 40 + year old men were conscripted for front line combat units. 60 and 70 year old men were sent to home defense units (home guard).

In Sweden, at least in the past, underage boys, old men and those that are physically disabled were the first into combat if Sweden where ever invaded. It is their job to slow the enemy down for 24 hours and allow the army (mostly reservists) time to form up. There survival is not considered important or likely.

If things ever get really bad it could happen to you.

Mattthemuppet, It would seem that you are not old enough to remember the Vietnam war, American boys got drafted and sent to war literally by the millions and treated poorly when they got back.

I heard at one time that Switzerland has mandatory military service, ( as do Sweden Finland? and Turkey, among many others). The primary difference was that once out of training everyone went home with their weapon, and were expected to answer when called. Effectively none were ever discharged, just on prolonged leave from the army.

camdigger
04-30-2015, 04:07 PM
....and on the subject of graveyards..... there are graveyards everywhere on the lower half of the Gallipoli peninsula. There are few individual graves. Some memorials are set up not with individual gravestones, but a stone for each village represented among the dead. Some "cemeteries" are very new having been set up in the last couple of years in anticipation of the centennial...:rolleyes:

mattthemuppet
04-30-2015, 06:38 PM
Mattthemuppet, It would seem that you are not old enough to remember the Vietnam war, American boys got drafted and sent to war literally by the millions and treated poorly when they got back.

Nope, I'm not - born 3yrs after the fall of Saigon. For all the misery it caused and still causes to both sides, it's a valuable lesson often forgotten. There have been several interesting articles about it from both sides on BBC news recently.

I did visit my great uncle's WW1 grave in France a number of years ago. It wasn't even in one of the larger cemeteries but it was still a sobering visit. Trouble is, we're not the people that decide whether or not to go to war.

fixerdave
04-30-2015, 09:03 PM
You seem to have forgotten about Genghis Kahn who conquered most of the known world, the pre-columbian American Indian cultures (Incas etc) that where unbelievable bloody and brutal and lets not forget the Muslim's, in the olden days that spread their religion by force. Catholics have a lot to answer for also. Europeans are no better or worse then anybody else. We are brutal as a race.

We need to stop war. Fine. Give us a detailed plan on how to do it because nothing has worked so far and not for lack of trying. As the population problem gets worse, wars will just get worse.

We may vary well look back on WW1 and think of how quaint it was and not particularly bad by future standards.

So bend over and get ready to take it. It's coming.

Genghis Kahn conquered most of the known world, but not all of Europe. Neither did the Romans, nor Ottoman Turks, nor anyone from Europe for that matter. That's my point. While most places all over the world had dynasties, empires, shogunates, and the like, Europe had war after war. There's something about the geography that prevented total or lasting control. Just a bunch of countries eternally squabbling with each other. While these long-lasting empires may have been nasty or expansionist, they did provide their citizens a form of peace not really known in Europe. Out of that European ever-lasting war evolved a very unique cultural element, one of total war.

If you stand back and look, it becomes obvious. I remember one WWII newsreel of some grandmother types sitting around drinking tea. There was no grandmotherly compassion or pity, no restraint. They were very much "our boys should bomb the hell out of them." That is what our culture teaches us. Be all nice and caring, but when push comes to shove, kill them all any way you can. But why?

The why is simple... we are being used by our respective cultures. The first step in stopping this is to see it. It's easy to see the insanity of teaching your son to throw rocks at a guy in a tank. We can, from our distance, see that the Palestinians, as individuals, would be massively better off if they just said "Okay, I'm Jewish." But, no, they keep teaching hatred, fighting, and martyrdom... why? We can see that in others, but we do it too. We need to get to the point where we can see it in ourselves.

I'm not some idealist... I know that force is a requirement of peace. We will always have enforcers to stop those that would use force against us. We will have alliances to gang up on the enforcers that get any ideas. But, as individuals, we need to get past the cultural programming that teaches us that we should die to defend our way of life. If we're going to fight for something, it should be something that benefits us, as individuals, not our nation-states.

As for the coming wars... hard to say. Population levels are expected to peak at 9-12 billion and then start falling. They talk about food and resource scarcity, but they've been talking that for many generations. There are options, and ones that aren't actually that bad if it came down to it. The "world is coming to an end" crowd have been yelling about this pretty much from the start, even Christianity started off as a doomsday cult. At some point, you have to get past the fear-mongering. Wars today are a small fraction of what they were in the previous century. I was born into the first generation (probably ever) that actually didn't have to go off and fight a war somewhere. I'm probably the first generation in European history that doesn't rank having their son's die in combat as a major risk. That's a pretty big improvement; it might last, if we try.

David...

wierdscience
05-01-2015, 01:55 PM
You may not want to be around when the earth human population crunch comes and available resources will no longer be able to support the population.
Human population is increasing exponentially, and the predicted crunch time is not far off.
This is when you will see tribalism at its worst.
Max.

The predictions have been all wet ever since Malthus,the UN claims a peak of 11 bn by 2050,but more realistic numbers put it at 8.8 bn.The rate of growth from 1950 to 2000 was 1.76% it is now at .77% hardly exponential.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24303537

And those numbers don't take into account the possibility of war and pandemic.

loose nut
05-01-2015, 02:41 PM
I don't know about facts and figures but I can remember when the pop. hit 2.5 Billion and now its almost 7.5B. That's only 50 years give or take and the planet can't handle it. Well the planet will survive but living on it will be tough, for us and any animals that are left.

wierdscience
05-01-2015, 03:13 PM
I don't know about facts and figures but I can remember when the pop. hit 2.5 Billion and now its almost 7.5B. That's only 50 years give or take and the planet can't handle it. Well the planet will survive but living on it will be tough, for us and any animals that are left.

The population will not double in 50 years,not even close.Look at the birthrates,in the developed world anything less than 2.5 and the population isn't being replaced.Much of the western world is old and dying off rapidly.The third world is still cranking them out,but as they industrialize their birth rates will fall as well.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html

loose nut
05-01-2015, 04:12 PM
Are you taking about the last 50 or the next 50 because in the last 50 years the population TRIPLED and it is still going. Been there, watched it happen.

Alistair Hosie
05-01-2015, 05:12 PM
I still think if we are honest and fair! it must be obvious .(even to the meanest intelligence,) that very few benefit, and do so massively during wars. Some people have and continue to live the very handsomely ,(greedily indeed) making the kind of money we ordinary ordinary hard working morally decent minded people could not imagine. Usually these people's without any sense of conscience's own children are never sent to fight or indeed themselves .
surely if we rearranged or forced our future leaders to listen to the people(they seldom ever do),then the kind of expenditure we spend ,(often cripplingly so and almost leave our institutions dare I say countries, bankrupt or in financial dire straights for many years,)on doing,and maintaining some forms of altruistic and correct future policies,especially to our own poor.We would all live in a much fairer and better world.Surely we all want this even if some are afraid to say so feeling it unpatriotic etc .We as I have repeated many times begged Blair or B-liar millions took to the streets to protest.But the mad bastard ,and his cohorts,had his mind made up and he said so .I watched a programme on tv at the time ,when he was told my many very knowledgeable people professors etc that we would leave the Iraqi's (post invasion)in a much worse state than they were in at the time (under Sadam) Strangely to the liar they were right and he was wrong,as he was over the whole fiasco.I know just before the war he was given a mortgage for one million pounds and many asked how he could afford the repayments on his prime ministers salary.They needn't have worried his is since IRAQ a multi millionaire with a fortune well over a hundred million plus.The man told us all the lies he could to go to war.All of the expert advise was swept over to result in the sorry bloody mess we are in today.Whereas the USA and Britain were seen as the good people they now after IRAQ and torture who would have thought we would end up resorting to these sad ,sad tactics.If anyone had suggested to me we would do this a number of years ago I would have thought them delusional.And your leader mr Bush has vanished from the political landscape literally overnight a much wealthier repeat much wealthier man than he could ever wish as did his cohorts also. Sorry ONCE AGAIN for my rant on these evil people.Alistair

wierdscience
05-01-2015, 10:37 PM
Are you taking about the last 50 or the next 50 because in the last 50 years the population TRIPLED and it is still going. Been there, watched it happen.

The next fifty,must remember the whole world experienced the post war baby boom,not just the western world.The boomers are all getting very much older and are just starting to begin dying off.That we aren't replacing ourselves means the population will peak and begin dropping fairly soon.

If you check out the link and look at the lowest birth rate countries there are some surprising things fixing to happen.

oldtiffie
05-01-2015, 10:46 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

https://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=planet+earth+human+population+in+50+ years

oldtiffie
05-02-2015, 01:42 AM
This thread was started with a topic addressing the huge losses of human life in WW1 - 100 years ago - which was bad enough in many ways.

But before WW1 (1914 - 1918) had even finished the 1918 Influenza pandemic broke out and its killing rate exceeded or bettered (?) that of WW1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic

https://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=influenza+pandemic+1918

The recent "Ebola" virus was seemingly a candidate as a pandemic if it had "got away" (world wide) too.

https://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=ebola+virus

There are and have been and will be many others for a whole lot of reasons.

We have had several out-breaks of Equine virus here which is pretty well endemic in parts of Australia.

https://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=&oq=equine+virus&hl=en-GB&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4IRFC_enAU360AU360&q=equine+viral+arteritis+australia+&gs_l=hp..2.0j0i10l3j0.0.0.0.24809...........0.rU69 aRBivks#hl=en-GB&q=equine+infectious+anaemia+Australia

Viral transmissions from bats to humans is a problem in parts of Australia too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_bat_lyssavirus

https://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=&oq=equine+virus&hl=en-GB&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4IRFC_enAU360AU360&q=equine+viral+arteritis+australia+&gs_l=hp..2.0j0i10l3j0.0.0.0.24809...........0.rU69 aRBivks#hl=en-GB&q=human+infections+from+bats

We have had (and still do?) have periodic outbreaks of polio here too - often in the populations of islands to our near north.

https://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=&oq=equine+virus&hl=en-GB&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4IRFC_enAU360AU360&q=equine+viral+arteritis+australia+&gs_l=hp..2.0j0i10l3j0.0.0.0.24809...........0.rU69 aRBivks#hl=en-AU&q=polio+Australia

So disease has the potential to "trim" a rising world or country population.

These are in addition to "war-caused" catastrophic deaths.

loose nut
05-02-2015, 10:53 AM
Just more fun and games, Tiffie.

Alistair Hosie
05-02-2015, 11:08 AM
Not sure which is more annoying, arm-chair generals or arm-chair pacifists.
Gary

Answer of course arm chair generals.:confused: be not confused,most people will agree that pacifism is the only way out of this mess. But along with reducing our going to war for a host of wrong reasons, tell me one war where there was a happy outcome? Of course we must defend ourselves from attack that goes almost without saying. I have witnessed especially recently elderly gentlemen who were involved in those wars. They still cry openly when the talk of their long and deeply negatively affected memories,surely that is a stark reminder of the pain they have carried with them all these painful years .Alistair

loose nut
05-02-2015, 04:16 PM
Not wanting to go to war is one thing, avoiding it is a completely different matter. Complete pacifism is utterly dangerous. After wars there is usually a cry of "beat the swords into plowshares". It goes way back, thousand of years and usually the result of a long war with lots of death and destruction.

But there is also another saying, "he who beats his sword into a plowshare will plow the fields of those that don't". The best and unfortunately the only option is to maintain a readiness to fight and the other guys may see that it will cost to much to attack.

To paraphrase Teddy R, "WALK SOFTLY AND KEEP THE BOMBERS ON 20 MINUTES NOTICE TO GO".

Alistair Hosie
05-02-2015, 05:28 PM
Oh I do believe in self defence but chronic attacks killing innocent women Men and sadly children followed by torture as we have seen recently is quite another dare I say the start of a very indecent slippery slope.Shameful IMHO.Some seem to think that this inhuman behaviour like Rumsfeld and co,is perfectly acceptable,until their own sons and also daughters become victims.There are many here who feel very uncomfortable about this low life behaviour,but I think they are afraid to speak out for fear of intolerant people who love and live to insult decent thinking men and women who make up the majority by far , in the USA and Europe inc Britain. Alistair

oldtiffie
05-02-2015, 08:15 PM
The title of this thread is: Lest we forget 100 years later...

Which in the main (where it sticks to topic) refers mainly to World War 1 (WW1) 1914>1918 - 100 years ago.

But a further 100 years back (to 1818) - 200 years ago was the Battle of Waterloo.

Its well worth a read as it points out that large scale war and losses did not just occur 100 years ago but 200 years ago as well.

(There were many others similar a lot further back than 200 years as well).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Waterloo

https://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=battle+of+waterloo+deaths

oldtiffie
05-03-2015, 04:22 AM
For an enlightening read regarding the Crusades and Saladin and the crimes committed and blood let all in the name of religion/s read up on the several religious Crusades and the sins they committed in the nmae of religion .

Its a good read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

https://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=history+of+the+crusades&revid=1812352078

https://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=deaths+in+the+crusades

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin

https://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=sins+of+the+crusaders

https://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=saladin

fjk
05-04-2015, 10:04 AM
First, since I started the books subthread ... thanks to the others who posted
some book recommendations ... all are now on my list!

Second ... some folks mentioned the Commonwealth War Graves... In 2000 or 2001
while on a business trip to London I had some off-time so a colleague and I decided
to take a day-trip to Paris on the Chunnel for fun. When the train was zipping along
between Calais and Paris we occasionally saw a Union Jack flying off in the distance.
The flags were far enough away that we could barely make them out, we couldn't
see anything more. Then the train passed close enough to one that we could make
out all the details ... lots of grave stones, a fence, no church... aha! We were, basically,
traveling along the Western Front and the flags were over "... some corner of a foreign
field. That is for ever England..."

Third, I'd (unfortunately) point out that large-scale death-and-destruction is
quite old ... the third Punic war and the siege of Carthage come to mind. The
results were not unlike a nuclear bomb going off on the city ... it just took longer.

Frank

loose nut
05-04-2015, 11:04 AM
There are well over a million WW1 war graves from the Commonwealth countries around the world but the bulk of them are in France and Belgium. At least as many more that are missing.

Your right about mass slaughter not being new. The industrial revolution in Europe just allowed the Ur-o-pea-ons to do it faster and more efficiently then others before them. A trait that has been expanded on since WW2 around the world.

As a race we are war like and most likely to remove our self's from history. Can't say we will be missed.