Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "BBC" channel.

The reason to get as far away from a sinking ship, is not only to 'get away from the propellers', as mentioned here. A sinking ships is an unpredictable mass, which behavior cannot be predicted. Any small piece breaking or falling off the heeling ship, could fall on your head and knock you unconscious. When ships sink, pieces often break off. The chances of being smashed by the chimney stack breaking off, or by another crew member jumping on top of you, or a loose piece of cargo falling down, or by the ship keeling over and being smashed by the superstructure, etc., is much larger than 'being sucked down', as is often mentioned in movies or docs.
25
For the same reason every generation of 25 year olds had always been criticized for being lazy, narcissistic and obsessed with >insert pet hate<... Because they stand for change. So, today older people fuss about "social media", in the same way that their parents fussed about the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, and before that, they fussed about women voting, and so on...and so on...and so on....
22
Maybe they should put in a grand finale of a chorus, in which they all sing together (my suggestion): We all want a say, and don't care that a few blokes died that's just so unfortunate, if kiddies are fried it's all 'bout our interests, and who rules the world we know ya'all love excuses, so no-one asks 'why'...
2
British elites did not advocate war "because of Belgium", but because of a policy the lords in London had decided upon loooong before the Kaiser was "building ships", and "wanted colonies". https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power A policy called Balance of Power, which practically dictated that GB would always join the weaker side, irrelevant of "right or wrong", and the only way GB could have realistically stayed out of the continental war about to unfold, was to abstain from the selfappointed role of "balancer" for the continent. It was British leaders, deciding in London, and this free choice had nothing to do with anything any continental leaders did, or didn't do. Why did GB join WW1? As simple as asking "Would GB have stayed out, under any circumstance?" To which the answer is no. The choice of making an entire people an enemy by default, long before they had even done anything to deserve the status of "enemy", had far reaching effects...
2
Historians generaly conclude that the first 2 world wars were started by GB, which invaded neighbors and wanted more territory. Of course they weren't called "World Wars" yet. I mean...it doesn't look good on a resume to go off killing people because you want more territory. From Wiki "The Seven Years' War (1756–1763) is widely considered to be the first global conflict in history, and was a struggle for world supremacy between Great Britain and France." It was started "...in 1754, when the British sought to expand into territory claimed by the French in North America... on 28 May 1754. The conflict exploded across the colonial boundaries..." Millions died. Glorious. Lotsa medals and heroes. The second world war is generally considered by most historians to have been started by GB (darn...again) "...18 May 1803 is often used, when Britain and France ended the only short period of peace between 1792 and 1814.... Britain ended the Treaty of Amiens and declared war on France in May 1803." [end of] Soon after declaring war GB started bomb(ard)ing innocent civilians in unprotected cities as target practice. Copenhagen was burnt to the ground and back home everybody was cheering, even creating the propaganda term "Copenhagenizing" to mock the dead. More millions dead. More gory glory...
2
The depiction at the end is wrong. The predominant form of killing advancing enemy soldiers was the 'cross fire'. Since soldiers usually attacked in the line abreast (to use a naval term), shooting at them from the front was not very effective, as most of the bullets would miss. In other words, the bullets would just go through the gaps between the attacking soldiers. Cross fire meant that two or more machine guns would fire at advancing soldiers from two sides, trapping them in a killing field from which there was virtually no escape. When looked at from the side, the gaps between the soldiers advancing in a line, are much smaller...
1
+Mairym hm Maybe they should have stayed out, by declaring their neutrality. Instead, French PM Poincare traveled to St. Petersburg, and pledged full support to Russia,which was in full support of Serbia, a rogue state which had supported the act of terrorism in Sarajevo. Don't be fooled. French leaders were willing to risk war as much or as little as all those other leaders shown here...
1
Mairym hm That is correct. The alliance was already in place, but it was a defensive alliance. In 1914, concerning purely Balkan matters, French leaders were under no formal obligation to assist Russia, since Russia also involved itself in Balkan matters, without there being any treaty whatsoever with Serbia. The French people therefore only have their own leadership to blame for the millions of deaths, and the hardships which followed. France could have remained neutral, by openly proclaiming neutrality in the Balkan Crises. In case you state that settling old scores was a motivation for the actions of French leaders, then it is also these French leaders who are to blame for their warmongering.
1
@davidgfisher Same difference. Every generation has always criticized the next generation, and every new generation has always thought about their parents generation as "old farts" or "stuckup"...
1
steve gale Contraception was already around since the 1960s. It was therefore a "change" for the previous generation (hippies, etc. from the 1960s/1970s) who famously rebelled against their "old farts" :-) Every generation has a previous generation of "old farts". Yes, and we (I'm almost 60) are the "old farts" of these kids. And, believe it or not...in 50 years time these kids will be the "old farts" of their kids, and the cycle repeats itself....
1
steve gale Hats off to you if you're close to 90 years old and still using the internet :-) Yes, your generation was probably more polite, growing up in the 1940s and 50s, and my knowledge is probably a bit sketchy that far back. But I do remember that things like the Charleston dance and "American music" like Jazz were frowned upon as evil novelties in the 1930s. So was suffrage, and the role of women in society (liberal vs. conservative views). Women drivers only became acceptable during WW2, and because of the demands war, not any considerations to "women's lib". Maybe not quite as viciously as today, but there was certainly a generation gap back then too. Rgds
1
The biggest long-term contributing factor for WW1 was the west's attacks on the Ottoman Empire. Under constant threat of attack at the fringes (Libya, Egypt, Balkans, etc.), the Ottomans were looking for a protector in Europe and found one in Wilhelm II. A strong alliance would have protected the Ottoman Empire from further western aggression. Paris and St. Petersburg wanted to avoid this, at all costs... For a close alliance between Berlin-Vienna-Budapest-Constantinople to become effective, land access was a prequisite... Pesky Serbia was in the way, and gave Vienna a perfect pretext for war, by supporting a terrorist organisation (The Black Hand). Just imagine, if the Ottoman Empire had simply been left alone, in peace, to develop or fall apart naturally... As always, the vultures of history cause wars by their own actions.
1
@Yuri DeKhed Why should I mention von Hotzendorf? His views ("getting rid of pesky Serbia") gained strength because of what I wrote. History is causal, with one thing leading to another. So here's my point again... No attacks on the Ottoman Empire. No feeling of being threatened. No seeking of assistance. No Hotzendorf...
1
Each country which joined WW1 did so voluntarily, with the exception of Belgium. There were no binding defense treaties (like NATO is today). The leaders of each country therefore implemented what is known as "war of choice". Each nation only has its own historical leaders to blame. Blaming Germany is a fallacious form of argumentation known as "outcome bias". That means that historical decisions once taken are judged by the outcome, rather than judged by what the original intention of the decision was. GB did not join WW1, "because of Belgium". That was just the dumb pretext to get "Jack the Plumber" off his behind, and out of the pub, same as "WMD" was in 2003. Better learn fast that there are always 2 sets of "reasons" nations go to war. One, for the commoners like us. The other is for the elites, who have an entirely different set of reasons. What do you think were the real reasons GB went to war in 1914?
1
@Yuri DeKhedBelgium was a pretext for war for the British Empire. British leaders had the choice to avoid the German implementation of Schlieffen Plan, but chose not to. British leaders, at the time, knew that Germany had no interest in a war with GB. In fact, they would even have changed the Schlieffen Plan, and honored Belgian neutrality, if only GB would agree to stay out of the war. The British stance on Belgium was that "if Belgium was invaded, GB would declare war". Therefore, logically, the following is also true: "If Germany did not invade Belgium, GB would stay out of the war". Correct? Germany therefore approached British leaders, stating just that. Peace for Belgium, in return for a guarantee that GB would stay out of the continental European war about to start (after Russian mobilisation). Foreign minister Grey refused, stating that GB reserved the right to join the war at any future point in time. That clearly proves that "Belgian neutrality" in August 1914 was a pretext. British leaders had it in their hands to save Belgium, but chose not to.
1
@Yuri DeKhed I quote "long term contributing factor". Read in context. GB joined WW1 to protect herself from a potential threat to her Empire, rather than compromising with Germany. Not compromising, led to the British Empire dropping to a position merely on par to the USA after WW1. From the unmistakable nr. 1 in 1900, to "on par" with the USA to "third fiddle" after WW2. It took 400 years to forge the Empire, and merely a lifetime to squander it...
1
@Yuri DeKhed Wars always start for several reasons. There are "triggers" (short term), "short-term causes", "long-term causes", etc. To distinguish from that, I wrote "contributing factor". That denotes a "lesser cause".
1
@Yuri DeKhed Berlin/Vienna wanted access to the the Ottoman Empire (see my first comment). Serbia was in the way. Paris/Moscow wanted to avoid the Balkan to fall under German hegemony.
1
@Yuri DeKhed @Yuri DeKhed Any history book :-) Wiki has a good short description... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman%E2%80%93German_alliance ...scroll down to "Background". @Yuri DeKhed For an overview of the standpoint of the various powers concerning the Balkans.... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Balkan_War ...scroll down to "Great Powers".
1
@Yuri DeKhed Hello? Can you see the links I added? If not, maybe Google the 1st and 2nd Balkan War, and check out the political position of the main powers (the wiki sites are good). It confirms what I wrote...
1
@Yuri DeKhed You asked me the real reason why WW1 started. So I wrote: "Berlin/Vienna wanted access to the the Ottoman Empire (see my first comment). Serbia was in the way. Paris/Moscow wanted to avoid the Balkan to fall under German hegemony." You asked me for sources. So I gave you the links to wiki, which always list dozens of sources (at the bottom of each page). I hope you didn't think think that it was the assassination of the Archduke which started WW1. That was a pretext, or "trigger". The "poor Archduke" was a pretext for Berlin/Vienna, same as "poor Belgians" was a pretext for the Brits, and same as "poor Serbian brothers" was a pretext for Moscow... Same as "WMDs" and "nasty Saddam" was a pretext in 2003. Do you understand geopolitics? The big picture? I mean really understand geopolitics?
1
@Yuri DeKhed OK, thanks for reading. Opinions differ of course, so that's ok. rgds
1
Real life's lesson? If you're weak, gang up on the bully.
1
@aswfabt Triggered much? 😆😅
1
@aswfabt Not "triggered" yet? Seeing how most of the comments are slogans and appeals to emotion, I'll just jump into the fray ;-) For hundreds of years, the British Empire went around the world bomb(ard)ing and terrorizing nations around the world. Not a week goes by and some new attrocity is unearthed: for example, search "The Bombardement of Alexandria in 1882" (then click on "images"). When they invaded half the planet, their "heroes" wrote stories about how exiting it was to "dodge bullets". The locals defending their own? Pfffft. Nobody cared... Famines accompanied by racial slurs of "breeding like rabbits anyway", sticking women and kids into concentration camps, scorched earth policies, torture chambers, slave labor camps (called "penal colonies"), and terror bombing innocents called Air Policing... No doubt getting a bit of their own medicine when their own cities burned down, and V-2s killed their kids, and they finally knew what it felt like. Not so "exiting" dodging rockets, right? Not so nice "reaping" what had been "sown" for a few hundred years, eh? Brits are nice today, but back then they simply had to be taught a lesson they wouldn't forget.
1
@aswfabt Everybody gets what they deserve 😆😅
1