World War One

[Sailor Steve]

I'll be interested to see what they say about Joffre in the actual show, since reconnaissance was always the primary use of the airplane during the Great War. One of the early complaints by German pilots was that the Fokker Eindecker was assigned to protect their own two-seaters from the enemy when they would rather be out hunting.

[Gerald]

A small tank designed by a famous French car maker and a brilliant army officer saw its first action. Its inspired design still lives on in the tanks of today, 100 years later.

On 31 May 1918, the German army launches a sudden attack near the Forest of Retz near Ploisy in the north-east of France. It is the last year of World War One, and the Germans are desperately trying to beat the Western Allies.

A British blockade is crippling the German economy. Those back at home are suffering shortages of fuel and food. The German Empire faces starvation and defeat.

As the French units at Retz try to resist the onslaught, they are joined by reinforcements. Among them is a new tank: the FT. Compared to the giant, lumbering British tanks that have been used with mixed results for the past 18 months, these are tiny. There is only room for two people inside them.

But they are remarkably effective. The 30 tanks rushed to this battle help to push the Germans back. The tanks only stop advancing because the accompanying infantry cannot keep up with them.

At the site of this action, a century later, there is now a plaque, commemorating the first use of what is arguably the ancestor of every modern tank. The tiny FT is a paradigm of far-sighted design.

And it owes its existence to an unlikely pairing: a pragmatic artillery officer and one of France’s most renowned carmakers.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2018...arfare-forever

The modern tanks had been born.

[mapuc]

VIASAT History is showing a documentary series called.

The Great War in Numbers.

https://yesterday.uktv.co.uk/shows/g...ar-in-numbers/

I missed the first episode, have since then tried to see as many I can.

Markus

[Sailor Steve]

A confession:

When I joined in the '100 Years' thread my main intent was to report on details of major naval events. I ended up trying to record all the U-boat sinkings and all the aviation details, mainly the aerial battles. In an effort to get more numbers I purchased several books on the aces and shoot-downs of the war. In "Bloody April" 1917 I found that it was running beyond what I could keep up with in a single day, and started falling behind. I ended up having to drop one or the other. I first thought of dropping the aviation side, as SubSim is after all a site dedicated to submarine history and warfare. I ran into the problem that I had spent a lot of money on the aviation books and the u-boat side could be done by anyone who was willing to spend a lot of time looking at www.boat.net.

So I dropped the u-boat listings. That worked for awhile, but the aerial side was even worse than I had thought. September 1918 was called "Black September" by the British. An example of that came home today. On September 2 1914 the Germans shot down 74 Allied planes. The French countered with 48 shoot-downs. I'm not sure how many the British had since there is no day-by-day book for the British. However you count it more than 120 aerial victories were recorded this day.

My confession is that I'm no longer able to list every single kill. There just isn't enough time in a day, let alone the other things I'm trying to do. I can't list all the kills. I can't even list all the aces' kills. For the last little while, but especially from today on I'm forced to only list kills made by double aces - pilots who have 10 kills or more. It's still going to be fairly big.

I ultimately plan to go back and add in every single aircraft and u-boat claim, but that will have to be at my leisure, and it won't be 100 years after the fact.

I'm sorry, but at this point it's the best I can do.

[Sailor Steve]

Frank Luke - The Controversy:

Every American aviation fan knows the story. Frank Luke joined the 27th Aero Squadron on July 31, 1918. During the month of August he gained a reputation as a loner, conceited, braggart, liar, even coward. He would pretend to have engine problems while on training flights, disappear for a time, then return home with tales of having attacked the enemy. Never any confirmation, but stories of the "Huns" he had shot down. At one point he claimed to have shot a German off of Major Hartney's tail.

Harold Evans Hartney had an interesting career of his own. Born in Ontario, Canada, he joined the war early on. As an FE.2 pilot he claimed to have been shot down by Manfred von Richthofen, though it was more likely Paul Strähle. This was the fourth time Hartney had been wounded. After recovering he recieved an unexpected and most unusual order, to return to Canada where he would be transferred to the United States Air Service to take command of the 27th Aero Squadron. There was a rule that American troops could not be commanded by a foreign officer. This was overcome by President Woodrow Wilson himself, making Harold Hartney and Major Geoffrey Bonnell American Citizens on the spot. Hartney commanded the 27th all through their training and posting to the Western Front.

Of the event in question, Hartney had found that he had an enemy plane on his tail. After an evasive maneuver he looked again and the enemy was gone. Did the German overshoot and go looking for an easier victim? Did Hartney's maneuver throw him off? Or did Frank Luke indeed shoot the enemy off his commander's tail, or at least make him run? While Luke's reputation as a braggart and a liar spread, Hartney himself was inclined to beleive the boy from Arizona. When Hartney was promoted to Lt Colonel and assigned command of the 1st Pursuit Group, Captain Alfred Grant took over as commander of the 27th Aero. Grant didn't like Frank Luke, and didn't trust him. Then, on September 12, Frank Luke pulled his usual stunt of faking engine problems and disappearing. This time, however, he went alone after a German balloon, and shot it down in front of witnesses. Then, on the 14th, two more. The next day it waws three. Two more on the 16th. Five on the 18th. And then nothing until the 28th, when he got two more. The ten days off was due to his enforced leave after losing his friend Joe Wehner, and then finding himself given an easy behind-the-lines mission on his return.

Every American aviation fan knows the story. On his last day Frank Luke shot down three more German balloons, was forced to land, faced off a company of German infantry, pulled his two .45 Colt automatics and killed six of them before they shot him dead. It's in this last part that the controversy comes. Luke had been grounded by Captain Grant, due to his continuing refusal to obey orders. He took a SPAD up anyway and beyond question shot down three more German balloons. But what happened after that? After the War, Captain Frederick Zinn single-handedly created the concept of "leaving no man behind". He stayed in Europe so he could have access to German records regarding nearly two hundred American airmen still listed as "Missing". Under Zinn's direction a Captain McCormick interviewed surviving citizens of Murvaux, the town closest to where Frank Luke disappeared. McCormick interviewed fourteen denizens of Murvaux, and then dug up the body of the American aviator buried there. The Germans had left the wristwatch behind when they looted the body for souveniers. Beyond question it belonged to Frank Luke. The townspeople signed an affadavit attesting that Luke had landed near the town. When approached by German troops he drew his "revolver" (singular) to defend himself. "A moment afterward he fell deaad following a serious wound he recieved in the chest." One of the problems with this story is that none of the citizens of Murvaux were fluent in English and Capatin McCormick spoke almost no French. Years later Fred Zinn, who was fluent in French, interviewed the surviving Murvaux citizens himself. Zinn discovered that none of the French were allowed closer than 100 metres to the airplane, and most were much farther away than that. How much did they really see? One account said that Frank pulled his pistol and fired a shot into the air, but none of the Germans fired back. Another account says the Germans abused the body, one of them kicking it. Against that is the fact that they French were kept well back, and a soldier prodding the body with his boot to see if it was really dead could, at range, be taken for a kick. The testimony in Zinn's documentation is certain about one thing, though - the German soldiers did not fire at Frank Luke.

Then there was Bernard Mangels. former Leutnant der Reserve, commanding Ballonzug 35. There is no contemporary report, but in a letter to historian Royal Frey Mangels says "Before Frank Luke had a chance to open fire, we let loose with a machine gun barrage. The pilot lost control of his aircraft which crashed with great impact near the balloon. Fortunately it did not catch fire. When our people rushed up to the wreckage to rescue the unfortunate from the desperate situation, he showed only weak signs of life. He passed away shortly thereafter. A machine gun bullet which hit the radiator ricocheted and struck his chest. Our people removed the body of the brave enemy and put it in an empty room in our camp." No, gun battle on the ground, no strafing of troops, no abuse of the body.

On the other hand the French said the pilot landed the plane and climbed out, apparently trying to reach a nearby stream. Everyone agrees that, like the Red Baron, there was only one bullet hole, in the chest. Also factors in the equation are the prejudices of the witnesses. The French wanted to make the Germans look as bad as possible, which likely influenced their testimony. Bernard Mangels was by all accounts a kindly man, and took offense to the suggestion that men under his command would abuse the body of a fallen enemy. Both testimonies are based on memories from years, even decades earlier.

On November 20 1918 Captain Alfred Grant put in the request that Frank Luke be awarded the Medal of Honor. The original request lists his accomplishments while alive, and have nothing to do with the manner of his death. By the time the Medal was awarded the citation only contained the (probably spurious) events of the day he died. Though Eddie Rickenbacker was the first to be recommended for the Medal of Honor, Frank Luke was the first to actually receive the award. Joseph Wehner was also recommended for the MoH, but proceedings were dropped at the request of his mother, who felt her son wouldn't want it.

After the Great War ended Frank Luke was glorified in books by Norman S. Hall (not the Norman Hall who co-wrote Mutiny on the Bounty and was himself a WW1 pilot), Arch Whitehouse and Harold Hartney himself. Those books, especially the first two, are filled with grandiose stories of Luke's amazing accomplishments, almost all of them provably false. What is the truth about Frank Luke's death? The only certainty is that we'll probably never know.

Criticism of Frank Luke:
"There is only one sad thing about it, he can't keep it up. He will not stick to formations. I have warned him. I told him he will be picked off sure as fate, perhaps today, perhaps tomorrow, but he does not seem to be able to understand such things. We simply have to trust to chance."
-Major Harold Hartney, interview with George Seldes.

"It isn't courage exactly. He has no imagination. He can't imagine anything happening to him. He thinks he's invincible. If he ever finds himself he may be almost as good as he thinks he is."
Lt Jerry Vasconcells, squadron-mate

Praise for Frank Luke:
"If Frank Luke were alive tody, I wouln't be here."
-Edward V. Rickenbacker, during a parade in his honor as America's "Ace of Aces". Luke was America's leading ace at the time of his death, and Rickenbacker always maintained that had the "Arizona Balloon Buster" lived he would have retained that title.

[HunterICX]

They Shall Not Grow Old

On the centenary of the end of First World War, Academy Award-winner Peter Jackson (The Lord of the Rings trilogy) presents the World Premiere of an extraordinary new work showing the Great War as you have never seen it.

This unique film brings into high definition the human face of the First World War as part of a special London Film Festival presentation alongside a live Q&A with director Peter Jackson hosted by Mark Kermode.

Using state of the art technology to restore original archival footage which is more than a 100-years old, Jackson brings to life the people who can best tell this story: the men who were there. Driven by a personal interest in the First World War, Jackson set out to bring to life the day-to-day experience of its soldiers. After months immersed in the BBC and Imperial War Museums’ archives, narratives and strategies on how to tell this story began to emerge for Jackson. Using the voices of the men involved, the film explores the reality of war on the front line; their attitudes to the conflict; how they ate; slept and formed friendships, as well what their lives were like away from the trenches during their periods of downtime.

Jackson and his team have used cutting edge techniques to make the images of a hundred years ago appear as if they were shot yesterday. The transformation from black and white footage to colourised footage can be seen throughout the film revealing never before seen details. Reaching into the mists of time, Jackson aims to give these men voices, investigate the hopes and fears of the veterans, the humility and humanity that represented a generation changed forever by a global war.

I've seen some restoration to HD and colour the last few years when it comes to documentaries of WW1 and WW2 but this....this is something else.

Sadly I don't live in the UK because this is something I definitely would have wanted to watch on the big screen.

[Buddahaid]

Down to the wire. What a hug endeavor, and I thank you for enriching my knowledge of WWI. Cheers, mates!

[succerpunch]

Are we going to do this again in 2039?

[Sailor Steve]

That depends on what you mean by "we". If you want to do the research, collate the facts, type it up and post it every day for six years you are more than welcome. If by "we" you mean "is someone else going to do this" then I don't know. I am reasonably certain that I won't be around to take on a task like that, and if I am still around I will be 89 years old when it starts, 95 years old when it ends and 101 years old when the anniversary of the Treaty of San Francisco takes place.

Incidentally I moved your post to this thread as '100 Years Ago Today' is still operational and will be for several more months.

[mapuc]

Had to dig this not so old thread up
(don't want to post comments in Steve and Jim's thread)

Can't remember when and what exactly Steve said before the end of WWI.

This thread will not end on Nov. 11 it will continue 1 year more until….then something about peace treaty.

This didn't surprise me at all.

In every big event, there is always an aftermath, which can go on for years

Military
Political-Geopolitical
and
Society

Markus

[Sailor Steve]

The Treaty of Versailles was signed on June 28, 1919, exactly five years to the day after the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. We plan to keep reporting up to that time, since so many interesting things were going on until that day. After that? We'll see what happens.

[mapuc]

Some thoughts about the Civil war in Russia

Was it as a result after the war against Germany or was it as a result after the communist had overthrown the Czar ?

Or both ?

Markus

[Buddahaid]

I'm really trying to follow this but it's like the boardroom meeting from hell. I don't know how you can relate it!

[Sailor Steve]

The above was posted in the '100 Years' thread. I took the liberty of moving it here to avoid distractions in that thread.

As to the question I hope my answer isn't as convoluted as the Peace Conference itself.

I started off with the simple idea of reading the day's proceedings and distilling it down into a simple post that would give a general idea of what happened. I thought it would be no problem. As the meetings got longer it became harder to do that. Part of the problem I have is that I find the wrangling and arguing among the members to be fascinating. I've never been overly political, and suddenly having a fly-on-the-wall view of some of the most important political discussions of the twentieth century was just amazing.

I sometimes forget that other people have other interests, and this isn't everybody's cup of tea. Unfortunately I'm crippled by a mild case of OCD which makes me way to pedantic.

Doing it this way hasn't made it any easier. Distilling it all down meant reading each day's proceedings at least twice, and sometimes more. On the other hand, while it may look that way, this isn't just a copy-and-paste job. The original notes are filled with page-markers, footnotes and flat-out mistakes in the typing, all of which have to be removed or corrected. Then there is my penchant for rendering things into the modern tense. In the end before I post any of this I have read it thoroughly.

So - the Short Version:

The Council of Four - the leaders of Britain, France, Italy and the United States, all sat down to draw up a Peace Treaty with the former Central Powers - Germany and Austria-Hungary. Working under them was the Council of Foreign Ministers. Who they were should be obvious. They had to decide how culpable the Central Powers, especially Germany, had been. In the interest of fairness they recognized that both sides owed each other for war losses, so they tried to confine the claims for German reparations to the countries Germany had actually invaded.

Another complication was that the Austro-Hungarian Empire no longer existed, and several new Nations had sprung out of its remains and from some other sources - Austria and Hungary of course, but also Poland, Croatia, and a host of others I can't remember offhand. This is made worse by the other things under consideration. Biggest is the League of Nations. They feel that many problems they are being asked to consider now should be put off and handled by the new League. They are having to deal with questions like: Should Germany be paid for the underwater Transatlantic Cables laid at their expense? If these were just taken over by the Allies they could just be handed back. But many of them were cut, and can't be repaired; they will have to be relaid. Many more were diverted to Allied destinations, and are now being used for huge amounts of international traffic. The could be handed back, but that means that all German traffic would have to go through Halifax or New York. The complications are huge, and the discussions cut into the main goal, which is to create a Peace Treaty with Germany.

Then came the Big Rift. Italy wanted the port of Fiume, which by the Treaty of London had already been awarded to Croatia. At this point the Italians have walked out and refuse to deal with what is now the Council of Three until their demands are met. Doubly unfortunate is that this is happening right as the German delegates are coming to Paris, and the Allies are showing less solidarity than before.

I'll be honest: I was so relieved with the signing of the Armistice last November. I though I was out of it, and I have several projects of my own that I've left untouched for four years. There is an end in sight. The Peace Treaty was signed on June 28. There are meetings going all the way through December, but they don't seem to be too bad.

So my dilemma is: Keep on doing it this way, which leaves the entire conversations intact, saving long speeches that go nowhere, or go back to distilling it down into terms everyone can understand and actually enjoy the read. The latter is probably the best, but it will mean doing twice the work I'm doing now just to try to make it clear while not losing too many interesting points.

Opinions?

[mapuc]

I'm not the only one who reads you posting in 100 years ago today.

If I was the only one I would say….keep on posting daily information from this Paris Peace conference

In other word I'm hooked I read it with huge interest.

Markus