History Nerd Thread

[Sebastian]

Truely one of the heroic battles fought by American forces. Talk about bravery in thr face of overwhelming odds......Any of the Japanese cruisers or battleships should have been able to defeat them single-handedly.

Yeah, the Japanese chickened out the one time their suicidal tendencies would have actually inflicted a major defeat on the US.

History is ironic.

A really fun article that mentions our buddy von Lettow-Vorbeck and some other ball-busters:

Lettow-Vorbeck led one of the most amazing adventures of all time. Too bad they will never make a movie and if they did he'd be an American played by Matthew McConaughey and they end up defeating the Germans through the use of a rebuilt Zeppelin or some other stupid McGuffin.

 

[Sebastian]

Current political events have me thinking a lot about the Century of Horror that constitutes the roughly 100 years since the beginning of WWI. In particular I have been reading up on Kaiser Wilhelm II. Arguably, he is the one man that could have prevented the War or perhaps could have prevented Hitler from gaining complete control of Germany. It is an historical irony that the man that inhabited the great pivot point of history, a role he saw as his destiny, was so wholly inadequate to occupy it from literally the moment of his birth.

He conceived himself to be the "Greatest Warlord" in German History but prevaricated between war and peace until events proceeded without him.

So many tragedies had to occur during his life to even establish the conditions that eventually called on Willy to decide the fate of billions. A traumatic birth. A cold and distant mother. A father marginalized by the King and Bismarck. Conflict with his liberal father and the latter's early death. It is worth reading his Wiki page or buy a bio if you really want a peek into the mind of a man who could have been great, but whose own mental issues led him to be the most brilliant failure in history.

One facet of this tragedy is the close familial relationships between the monarchs of the belligerent nations. Specifically, the personal relationship between Wilhelm and Nicholas II should have prevented war. What became clear though is that neither man was strong enough to tell their subordinates NO when it mattered.

@gourimoko
@The Human Q-Tip
@Randolphkeys

How Nicky and Willy Could Have Prevented World War I

By Graham Allison July 25, 2014
Graham Allison is director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard’s Kennedy School.

"One hundred years ago this week, Tsar Nicholas II of Russia and Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany exchanged a series of telegrams to try to stop the rush to a war that neither of them wanted. They signed their notes “Nicky” and “Willy.”

Cousins who vacationed together, hunted together and enjoyed dressing up in the uniforms of each other’s military officers when sailing on their yachts, these two great-great-grandsons of Paul I of Russia wrote to each other in English, affirming their mutual interests and outlining an agreement that would have resolved the crisis on terms acceptable to both rulers. Yet only three days after the tsar and kaiser’s initial exchange, Germany declared war on Russia, and World War I was underway. Tragically, these leaders were caught in what Henry Kissinger has called a “doomsday machine”: a network of interlocking alliances and military mobilization timetables that allowed the march of events to overcome their best efforts.

The telegrams between them were discovered by an American journalist in the Russian government archives in 1919 and caused a sensation when they were first published in 1920. A century after they were written, they are vivid reminders of the perils of crisis management — and the wisdom of preventive diplomacy to resolve challenges like today’s territorial dispute in eastern Ukraine before they become crises that suck great powers into confrontations.
The exchange began in the very early morning of July 29, just hours after Austria-Hungary (an ally of Germany) declared war on Serbia (an ally of Russia) in retaliation for the assassination of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo. Time was short to find a diplomatic solution that would prevent a regional war from becoming a world war.

Tsar Nicholas wrote: “In this serious moment, I appeal to you to help me. An ignoble war has been declared to a weak country. The indignation in Russia shared fully by me is enormous. I foresee that very soon I shall be overwhelmed by the pressure forced upon me and be forced to take extreme measures which will lead to war. To try and avoid such a calamity as a European war I beg you in the name of our old friendship to do what you can to stop your allies from going too far. Nicky.”

Even before this telegram arrived in Berlin, Kaiser Wilhelm sent his own message to the tsar, reading in part: “The persons morally responsible for the dastardly murder should receive their deserved punishment. In this case politics plays no part at all. On the other hand, I fully understand how difficult it is for you and your Government to face the drift of your public opinion. Therefore, with regard to the hearty and tender friendship which binds us both from long ago with firm ties, I am exerting my utmost influence to induce the Austrians to deal straightly to arrive to a satisfactory understanding with you. I confidently hope that you will help me in my efforts to smooth over difficulties that may still arise. Your very sincere and devoted friend and cousin. Willy.”

So from the outset, both leaders expressed hope for a diplomatic solution. And Wilhelm had a particular compromise in mind: Austrian troops would be allowed to advance as far as Belgrade and remain there until Serbia dismantled the Black Hand terrorist group, responsible for the murder of the archduke.

The kaiser told the German chancellor to communicate this proposal to Vienna. But the chancellor privately opposed the “halt in Belgrade” policy and did not deliver the message clearly. Instead, he instructed his ambassador in St. Petersburg to tell the Russian foreign minister that if Russia continued preparing troops for battle against Austria, Germany would also mobilize and “a European war could scarcely be prevented.”

In the next volley of telegrams, sent on the evening of July 29, Wilhelm explained to his cousin why Russia should remain on the sidelines of a limited Austro-Serbian war. Nicholas responded: “Thanks for your telegram conciliatory and friendly. Whereas official message presented today by your ambassador to my minister was conveyed in a very different tone. Beg you to explain this divergency! It would be right to give over the Austro-Serbian problem to the Hague conference. Trust in your wisdom and friendship. Your loving Nicky.”

In this telegram, the tsar made clear that he was still eager to find a diplomatic solution. He endorsed the kaiser’s proposal of negotiations at the Hague, where Germany, Russia, France and England would mediate an agreement between Austria and Serbia. And later that night, because of the messages he was receiving from the kaiser, he resisted the counsel of his war ministers that an immediate mobilization of the entire Russian army was the only plausible response to Austria’s declaration of war. Instead, he issued an order permitting partial mobilization, hoping that this would be viewed less provocatively in Berlin.

In this telegram, the tsar made clear that he was still eager to find a diplomatic solution. He endorsed the kaiser’s proposal of negotiations at the Hague, where Germany, Russia, France and England would mediate an agreement between Austria and Serbia. And later that night, because of the messages he was receiving from the kaiser, he resisted the counsel of his war ministers that an immediate mobilization of the entire Russian army was the only plausible response to Austria’s declaration of war. Instead, he issued an order permitting partial mobilization, hoping that this would be viewed less provocatively in Berlin.

Unfortunately, by the next day, both Nicholas and Wilhelm had been overwhelmed by competing views and the momentum of their governments. The tsar accepted his generals’ argument that full mobilization was necessary, because anything less would put his forces at a disadvantage in the event they had to be deployed against Germany. And the kaiser sent a telegram with strong language drafted by the German chancellor: “If, as it is now the case, according to the communication by you & your Government, Russia mobilises against Austria, my rôle as mediator . . . will be endangered if not ruined. The whole weight of the decision lies solely on you[r] shoulders now, who have to bear the responsibility for Peace or War. Willy.”

In the round of telegrams sent on July 31 (which crossed in transmission), neither side proved willing to make concessions or take actions that could have made room for a deal to prevent or delay the outbreak of war.

Kaiser Wilhelm: “I now receive authentic news of serious preparations for war on my Eastern frontier. Responsibility for the safety of my empire forces preventive measures of defence upon me. In my endeavours to maintain the peace of the world I have gone to the utmost limit possible. . . . My friendship for you and your empire, transmitted to me by my grandfather on his deathbed has always been sacred to me and I have honestly often backed up Russia when she was in serious trouble especially in her last war. The peace of Europe may still be maintained by you, if Russia will agree to stop the milit[ary] measures which must threaten Germany and Austro-Hungary. Willy.”

Tsar Nicholas: “We are far from wishing war. As long as the negociations with Austria on Serbia’s account are taking place my troops shall not make any provocative action. I give you my solemn word for this. I put all my trust in Gods mercy and hope in your successful mediation in Vienna for the welfare of our countries and for the peace of Europe. Your affectionate Nicky.” Shortly after that telegram arrived in Berlin, the German chancellor sent an ultimatum to St. Petersburg, giving Russia 12 hours to “suspend every war measure against Austria-Hungary and ourselves.”

The tsar responded to the kaiser: “Understand you are obliged to mobilise but wish to have the same guarantee from you as I gave you, that these measures do not mean war and that we shall continue negociating for the benefit of our countries and universal peace dear to all our hearts. Our long proved friendship must succeed, with God’s help, in avoiding bloodshed. Anxiously, full of confidence await your answer. Nicky.”

Russia never received that guarantee. Germany saw its ultimatum rejected. The exchange between Nicky and Willy ended on Aug. 1, with the kaiser writing: “I must request you to immediatly order your troops on no account to commit the slightest act of trespassing over our frontiers.”

That evening, Germany’s ambassador to St. Petersburg handed the Russian foreign minister a declaration of war and then burst into tears. The last-inning efforts of the cousins clearly failed, and today the legacy of their correspondence is one of missed opportunities. Had the kaiser and the tsar started sooner and been better statesmen, they might have prevented a world war that in the end both of them would lose."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...aea85133bc9_story.html?utm_term=.64c7e7732694

 

[Tornicade]

The Germany "doomsday" machine was put in place by Kaiser Wilhelm and was told as much by an outgoing Otto Van Bismar.

Kaiser Wilhelm certainly wasn't a tragic victim of his government and had taken multiple actions sabotaging international relations consistently over 20 years.

These letters are an example of two friends trying to stall each other on the inevitable.

 

[Sebastian]

The Germany "doomsday" machine was put in place by Kaiser Wilhelm and was told as much by an outgoing Otto Van Bismar.

Kaiser Wilhelm certainly wasn't a tragic victim of his government and had taken multiple actions sabotaging international relations consistently over 20 years.

These letters are an example of two friends trying to stall each other on the inevitable.

I think you miss my point. No one is debating that Wilhelm didn't create the conditions within the German Empire that made the entire military and civil apparatus primed toward the goal of "Der Tag" when they could wage a preemptive war.

My contention is that the very bellicosity that he exhibited from the time of his coronation, and its inverse of his weakness of character, are the outgrowth of a number of traumatic events earlier in life that could have caused what we would now consider Narcissistic Personality Disorder. But for many things he may have been a more stable leader; not least of which being his father ruling for some time before he came to the throne.

I believe Wilhelm's actions and their effects on his nation and the world are ones that should be studied today as it is an example of how a leader's erratic narcissism can lead to a change in governmental institutions and social norms that make certain outcomes, like war, inevitable. Moreover, it is the root of narcissism, being profound insecurity, that exacerbates the dangers of an aggressive policy as the leader will shrink from the massive burden of making the ultimate decisions thus allowing events to dictate policy rather than managing events through policy.

 

[BimboColesHair]

Let's get this bad boy going again.

 

[BooyaCS]

Let's get this bad boy going again.

I will say that the Battle of Bannockburn was misportrayed in the film Braveheart.

The Scots attacked Stirling Castle which was under British control in Scotland. At this point it has been 4 years since the death of William Wallace. Edward II had a formidible position inside Stirling Castle.

Also during this time there were several claims to the throne of Scotland with Edward the Bruce either intimidating or finally killing his opposition to the Scottish Crown.

Anyhow on the first day of battle here were the formations.

Little known is that his is the not the first battle at Stirling Castle. The first was the Battle of Stirling Bridge where the English would have to cross a bridge to get to Stirling Castle and the Scots attacked while they were confined to the bridge.

So on day 2 of the battle the English crossed the stream (Bannockburn) to try to establish their position ahead of it.

Unfortunately for them the Scottish forces unleashed on their positioning.

This battle is significant in that it opened up the north of england to raids from Scotland and also allowed for the Scottish Invasion of Ireland. This forced the English to finally settle the matter with the Treaty of Edinburgh-Northhampton in which England recongized Scottish independence.

Scotland and England would remain separate until the death of Queen Elizabeth I when England then had James VI of Scotland to become James I of England thus uniting Scotland and England again.

 

[Sebastian]

I will say that the Battle of Bannockburn was misportrayed in the film Braveheart.

The Scots attacked Stirling Castle which was under British control in Scotland. At this point it has been 4 years since the death of William Wallace. Edward II had a formidible position inside Stirling Castle.

Also during this time there were several claims to the throne of Scotland with Edward the Bruce either intimidating or finally killing his opposition to the Scottish Crown.

Anyhow on the first day of battle here were the formations.

Little known is that his is the not the first battle at Stirling Castle. The first was the Battle of Stirling Bridge where the English would have to cross a bridge to get to Stirling Castle and the Scots attacked while they were confined to the bridge.

So on day 2 of the battle the English crossed the stream (Bannockburn) to try to establish their position ahead of it.

Unfortunately for them the Scottish forces unleashed on their positioning.

This battle is significant in that it opened up the north of england to raids from Scotland and also allowed for the Scottish Invasion of Ireland. This forced the English to finally settle the matter with the Treaty of Edinburgh-Northhampton in which England recongized Scottish independence.

Scotland and England would remain separate until the death of Queen Elizabeth I when England then had James VI of Scotland to become James I of England thus uniting Scotland and England again.

Stirling Bridge was text-book in how to defeat a numerically superior enemy. And also an example of why a secure bridgehead is necessary when forcing a river. Attack while the enemy is canalized and then cut off. I remember from the Director's Commentary that Mel Gibson said budget and theatricality were reasons they didn't film the battle as it unfolded. Fair enough. I thought the scene was well filmed.

Constantine destroyed Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge in the same fashion. Did you know that they actually found Maxentius' Imperial regalia ten years ago? Including his scepter and his labrum.

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/...y_-by_-emperor/tetrachy/maxentius-306-312-ad/

 

[BooyaCS]

Stirling Bridge was text-book in how to defeat a numerically superior enemy. And also an example of why a secure bridgehead is necessary when forcing a river. Attack while the enemy is canalized and then cut off. I remember from the Director's Commentary that Mel Gibson said budget and theatricality were reasons they didn't film the battle as it unfolded. Fair enough. I thought the scene was well filmed.

Constantine destroyed Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge in the same fashion. Did you know that they actually found Maxentius' Imperial regalia ten years ago? Including his scepter and his labrum.

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/...y_-by_-emperor/tetrachy/maxentius-306-312-ad/

Right Stirling Bridge happened at the beginning of the Wars of Independence when Scotland had control of Stirling Castle.

Bannockburn was at the same place almost 2 decades later (1297 vs 1314). In the movie they used the tactics from Bannockburn during the Stirling Bridge Scene.

This was more of a let them attack then flank them as they came across the river.

Also the Scots were a force of 5 to 7k strong with the English being 15 to 25k strong.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Stirling Bridge was text-book in how to defeat a numerically superior enemy. And also an example of why a secure bridgehead is necessary when forcing a river.

I would say it is more of a textbook example of how not to cross a river. Stupidity matched with overconfidence is not a good combination.

Bannockburn was a more convention victory, but it kind of begs the question of why the English couldn't win. Archers should have been deadly to the schiltrons, but for some reason, they weren't effectively employed.

I'm thinking the real agent of Scottish victory/independence was weather/terrain. The generally soggy ground/terrain must have been a bitch for horsemen. In small groups, they could find room to maneuver, but larger groups would be inhibited from moving freely. That essentially reduced the English advantage in cavalry, and without a good cavalry screen, the archers were vulnerable to being swept by lighter Scottish cavalry. If the Scots selected their ground correctly, the pike formations would have had a real advantage because they couldn't be effectively flanked.

It would be interesting as hell to actually see how it all shook out. It's easy to look at two dimensional maps and say "they should have done 'x'", but things like folds in the ground, unreliable ground/footing, just don't translate well over 700 years.

I always think back to my first visit to Gettysburg, and thinking Sickles must have been an idiot for moving forward into the Peach Orchard and exposing his flanks. But when you see the shitty ground in which he was directed to deploy, his action becomes more understandable, if still not entirely justified. I wonder if Meade actually ever looked at the ground to which he had assigned Sickles' III Corps.

No substitute for actually seeing the ground. I imagine that kind of thing is still incredibly important to tankers in particular.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Stirling Bridge was text-book in how to defeat a numerically superior enemy. And also an example of why a secure bridgehead is necessary when forcing a river. Attack while the enemy is canalized and then cut off. I remember from the Director's Commentary that Mel Gibson said budget and theatricality were reasons they didn't film the battle as it unfolded. Fair enough. I thought the scene was well filmed.

Well, that makes me think a bit better of Mel, but it's kind of disappointing that those medieval/ancient battles tend to be portrayed onscreen as massive melees in which everyone is completely intermingled, with no semblance of formation. Not that everyone should be clearly in ranks, but at least some kind of depth to the formations should still exist.

 

[CleveRocks]

Just a note. I was in Stirling three times last year and walked the ground of Stirling bridge.. pretty clear how the Scots used the landscape to clobber the british..

Hard to say what was there at the time, but today the river down stream of the bridge is lined with trees. It would have been difficult to see the Scottish ranks until you were well onto the bridge. Also the banks on the side of the English approach are pretty steep.

Even if the british had managed to break through at the river, they would have had a shitty grind up the hill to get to the Stirling castle, and then would have only a frontal attack option.

Stirling is by the way a great destination holiday..especially around may.. I love the Scots, and the local history is terrific. Not a fan of hagus, but everything else rocks..

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Just a note. I was in Stirling three times last year and walked the ground of Stirling bridge.. pretty clear how the Scots used the landscape to clobber the british..

Hard to say what was there at the time, but today the river down stream of the bridge is lined with trees. It would have been difficult to see the Scottish ranks until you were well onto the bridge. Also the banks on the side of the English approach are pretty steep.

Even if the british had managed to break through at the river, they would have had a shitty grind up the hill to get to the Stirling castle, and then would have only a frontal attack option.

Stirling is by the way a great destination holiday..especially around may.. I love the Scots, and the local history is terrific. Not a fan of hagus, but everything else rocks..

Apparently, though, the bridge crossed then isn't in exactly the same place as the new one. Did you see anywhere within 10 or so miles either way where a crossing could by had otherwise, though? A ford, etc?

Don't suppose those would have remained in the same place either, though. But damn, a river crossing in the face of the enemy who holds high ground.... English must have been overconfident as hell, though maybe the Scots hadn't yet given them a reason to feel otherwise.

 

[BooyaCS]

I would say it is more of a textbook example of how not to cross a river. Stupidity matched with overconfidence is not a good combination.

Bannockburn was a more convention victory, but it kind of begs the question of why the English couldn't win. Archers should have been deadly to the schiltrons, but for some reason, they weren't effectively employed.

I'm thinking the real agent of Scottish victory/independence was weather/terrain. The generally soggy ground/terrain must have been a bitch for horsemen. In small groups, they could find room to maneuver, but larger groups would be inhibited from moving freely. That essentially reduced the English advantage in cavalry, and without a good cavalry screen, the archers were vulnerable to being swept by lighter Scottish cavalry. If the Scots selected their ground correctly, the pike formations would have had a real advantage because they couldn't be effectively flanked.

It would be interesting as hell to actually see how it all shook out. It's easy to look at two dimensional maps and say "they should have done 'x'", but things like folds in the ground, unreliable ground/footing, just don't translate well over 700 years.

I always think back to my first visit to Gettysburg, and thinking Sickles must have been an idiot for moving forward into the Peach Orchard and exposing his flanks. But when you see the shitty ground in which he was directed to deploy, his action becomes more understandable, if still not entirely justified. I wonder if Meade actually ever looked at the ground to which he had assigned Sickles' III Corps.

No substitute for actually seeing the ground. I imagine that kind of thing is still incredibly important to tankers in particular.

The Scots took defensive position in the woods along the road to Falkirk. Day 1 of the battle was more of a skirmish than a full foot solider army clashing.

In the morning the English crossed the river and SUPRISE the Scot army in hiding ambushed and slaughtered them. Also the English were relieving the castle at Stirling.

I also don't think the English had archers for this battle. Everything I have read says about 1600 calvary and 2000 heavy infantry. Nothing about archers.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I've got a few books that cover the period, and all of them say the English army included a contingent of Welsh archers, as well as men from Lancashire, who also were almost surely archers. Maybe some sources generalize it to "infantry", but there were archers.

If the English crossed the river in force without having sent some light cavalry over initially to make sure there wasn't an ambush, then that's even worse.

 

[CleveRocks]

@Q.. I did not drive the river, but it was deep and slow moving as far as I could see from the bridge.. I believe the bank from the English side was higher, by maybe 10 feet, but if the Scots were in the woods along the river, the archers would not see a target.. once the English were over, it would be a short rush to engage the English, and there would be little advantage to the archers..

The bridge I walked over was not modern. It had a historical marker talking about the battle..

The high ground would be behind the Scots. There would be perhaps a quarter to half mile at 20 degree incline which would bring you to the cemetary overlooking the whole thing.. I did not attempt to walk from the bridge to the castle so a can't tell you anything about that, but I did walk through the cemetery to the castle which I think was about the same elevation..

In any case I can strongly recommend a visit to see for yourself. Johnny Walker is just down the road.. lots to see and do.Scots are among the happiest people on the planet.. Edinburgh was terrific also, but Stirling feels older..Edinburgh Castle had a very disappointing military museum. They included only scotch military history after it was re-unified with England. It was also telling they would not take Euro, and preferred scotch pounds..