OT - New Pilot asking for help!

[themightysrc 5]

"HOWEVER, Poland was European, and in fairly recent European history (as seen from WW1's timeframe) had gone from being a mighty empire to not existing at all. There were still Poles but they all lived neighboring parts of other mighty empires, which between them had divided and absorded what had been Poland not so long before. Poland has been resurrected 3 times since then: after WW1 (for a couple decades), after WW2 (in theory only), and after the break-up of the USSR (as we find it today). Seems a good example to me."

 

You have a point, but Poland is quite atypical, since it was not an established state and had been bickered over, sliced up, invaded, reunited and generally mucked around so much since the 16th Century that I doubt that anyone in 1914 would have pointed to Poland as an example of long lived state that had or would suddenly undergo complete dismemberment. Certainly, by that time it had been the bone of contention for so many countries (Prussia, Austria, France, Russia) that it would have been a brave bloke who'd have bet his trousers on its surviving particularly long.

 

I'd agree about the German and Italian states that were subsumed into Germany and Italy respectively, but that's a bit more complicated, since in many cases their identity continued and certainly their essential character (pre-absorbtion) was in most cases untouched. Woe betide a non-Bavarian who tells a native of Bavaria that they have no history or underlying culture! Cool reception guaranteed...

 

Anyway, it's nice to debate this sort of stuff: after all, if we don't, then we have to turn to professional historians for The Word, and fashions tend to come and go...

[Bullethead 12]

You have a point, but Poland is quite atypical, since it was not an established state and had been bickered over, sliced up, invaded, reunited and generally mucked around so much since the 16th Century that I doubt that anyone in 1914 would have pointed to Poland as an example of long lived state that had or would suddenly undergo complete dismemberment. Certainly, by that time it had been the bone of contention for so many countries (Prussia, Austria, France, Russia) that it would have been a brave bloke who'd have bet his trousers on its surviving particularly long.

 

Well, Poland lasted rather longer than the 16th Century. It was (as the main player in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) at the height of its power in the mid-17th Century. It strechted from the Baltic to the Black Sea. At that time, there wasn't a Germany. There was the Holy Roman Empire to the west, and there wasn't yet a Russia to the east, only Muscovy. IOW, the PLC was the main power in Eastern Europe. Its troubles didn't really begin until after the 30 Years War was over, and its final disappearance didn't happen until well after that. So when somebody way up-thread said no European nation had been snuffed out since before the 30 Years War, I was offering Poland as a counterexample.

 

There's also Spain to consider. The sun never set on that empire long before Queen Victoria came along, and but for some adverse winds in 1588 she never would have been born. Even by 1800, Spain still owned much of South America, almost all of Central America, and even what is now the southern edge of the US from Florida to California, not to mention a number of important Pacific islands, although most of its extraterritorial European possessions had been lost in the 1700s. So still a mighty empire. Then came Napolean's occupation of Spain itself. This led directly to most Central and South American territories winning independence, and the North American territories either revolting or being taken or purchased by the US from either Spain or its successor states. So after Napolean, there was pretty much only Spain itself left. However, Spain wasn't really a single country because it was nearly constantly in a state of civil war between secessionist territories like Catalonia and the Basque provinces, plus multiple competing royalist factions, republicans, anarchists, socialists, communists, and military dictators. This strife continued until very recent times and in some ways still smolders even today. So for all intents and purposes, Spain ceased to exist no later than 1808, at least by the standards of 1914 European politics.

 

Anyway, it's nice to debate this sort of stuff: after all, if we don't, then we have to turn to professional historians for The Word, and fashions tend to come and go..

 

Yup. I enjoy this sort of discussion very much.

[carrick58 23]

Welcome Mafiozo: In OFF always remember : Carry a " Gat" you need to be packin. If they get ya . They will work ya over before throwing ya in the Slammer and ur get the Chair in the Big House.

As another OFFER said before he picked up a Slug in the gut. U can get more with a Machine Gun then a Smile. Last but not least, Dont go into a Chicago Garage on

Valentines Day.

[themightysrc 5]

"Well, Poland lasted rather longer than the 16th Century. It was (as the main player in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) at the height of its power in the mid-17th Century. It strechted from the Baltic to the Black Sea. At that time, there wasn't a Germany. There was the Holy Roman Empire to the west, and there wasn't yet a Russia to the east, only Muscovy. IOW, the PLC was the main power in Eastern Europe."

 

Ah, BH, you know your Polish history well. I bow to your knowledge on this one - nothing like reading and learning!

 

"This strife continued until very recent times and in some ways still smolders even today. So for all intents and purposes, Spain ceased to exist no later than 1808, at least by the standards of 1914 European politics."

 

Oh, I'm not so sure about that one thobut. I suspect that the EC would be mightily pissed off to find out that Spain is no longer in existence! (makes great show of pulling leg). Despite its current woes, Spain is still a major European state and a not inconsiderable economic unit, even if their unemployment rate is appalling. It's interesting that you use the phrase "by the standards of 1914 European politics"; I guess I'd take that to mean that as an imperial power it was f***ed - and you'd be quite right about that. However, it's worth bearing in mind that even such powers - and Belgium surely falls into that category - were threatened with absolute dismemberment. It's easy to forget that Prussia heisted both Alsace and Lorraine (coal mining areas, I believe) after 1870. I wonder what Belgium's fate in the event of German success would have been in 1914? Mmmmmm..... lovely looking outlets for a greater German kriegsmarine?

[Bullethead 12]

Oh, I'm not so sure about that one thobut. I suspect that the EC would be mightily pissed off to find out that Spain is no longer in existence! (makes great show of pulling leg). Despite its current woes, Spain is still a major European state and a not inconsiderable economic unit, even if their unemployment rate is appalling. It's interesting that you use the phrase "by the standards of 1914 European politics"; I guess I'd take that to mean that as an imperial power it was f***ed - and you'd be quite right about that.

 

What I meant was, between 1800 and 1914, Spain had gone from being a Great Power (it had been the Great Power a couple centuries before 1800) to not even being even a regional power (due to the loss of all its major imperial possessions and its nearly perpetual civil wars at home). From the POV of the 1914 Great Powers, Spain didn't really exist. It was off in a corner of the Continent and no longer owned anything on an invasion route between the contemporary Great Powers. Also, its own real estate wasn't particularly desireable to its neighbors, so they didn't carve it up like they did Africa, China, etc. Spain suffered this fate primarily due to the European wars involving Napolean, and this was well-known to those in power at the time.

 

This has mostly been forgotten precisely BECAUSE Spain dropped out of European power politics after Napolean. West of the Urals, historical awareness of the post-Napoleanic period is dominated by WW1 and WW2, in which Spain played very minor roles. Spain's main press from this period is the civil war of the 1930s, which outside Spain is called "The Spanish Civil War", as if it was the only one ever, instead being merely the most recent of a long series dating back to immediate post-Napoleanic times.

 

Anyway, I'm thinking the fate of the Spanish Empire would have gnawed at British and French leaders before and during WW1 just as Poland's ghost no doubt haunted the nightmares of Russian, German, and Austrian leaders.

 

However, it's worth bearing in mind that even such powers - and Belgium surely falls into that category - were threatened with absolute dismemberment.

 

Belgium, like post-PLC Poland, had the misfortune of being a small state trapped between competing Great Powers. IOW, a place where its bigger neighbors met to fight. Belgium also had same ill-starred birth as post-WW1 Poland in being created more or less artificially by a remapping of its part of the Continent after a war between Great Powers, done in the interests of the Great Powers. In Belgium's case, it was a compromise that none of its parent Great Powers was particularly happy with, but it was better than the alternatives. With Spanish and Austrian claims to the area removed as a result of the war, the Great Powers were left with the question of what to do what the area. As the closest non-French part of the Continent to the UK, the UK could not tolerate Belgium being owned by a rival Great Power. But because Belgium is a strategic area between France and Germany, neither of them could tolerate the other or the UK owning that area, either. Thus, they agreed to create an independent, neutral Belgium as a barrier on the invasion routes between the 3 of them. No wonder, then, that the UK entered WW1 when the Germans attacked France via Belgium.

 

It's easy to forget that Prussia heisted both Alsace and Lorraine (coal mining areas, I believe) after 1870.

 

Well, that's a complex question. For most of recorded history, those provinces had been known as Elsass and Lothringen. IOW, they had a much longer history of being German than being French, so the Germans of 1870 considered them as having been "heisted" by the French not long before and were just trying to get them back. Of course, from the French POV, owning Elsass/Alsace and Lothringen/Lorraine resulted in a much better "natural" (as in defensible) frontier than not. But OTOH, as the Prussians / newly Imperial Germany pointed out, the French had for the last few centuries continually invaded Germany, and had in fact been the aggressor in the 1870-1871 war, so the new Reich needed a buffer zone between its "natural" fronteir and such a predatory neighbor.

 

Of course, Great Powers never heed the opinions of the natives of the provinces in question. As I understand things, these areas would prefer to be independent rather than part oif either France or Germany. As with Belgium and Poland, they're tired of being somebody else's battlefield.

 

I wonder what Belgium's fate in the event of German success would have been in 1914? Mmmmmm..... lovely looking outlets for a greater German kriegsmarine?

 

Well, for all of WW1, Germany owned all but a corner of Belgium and they made extensive use of Belgian ports for U-boats, to the great discomfort of the Entente. But there was never any question of basing the High Seas Fleet there. Zeebrugge and Oostende weren't big enough for ships larger than light cruisers. Antwerp was, but it couldn't be used by men-o-war without violating Dutch neutrality downstream. Removing this obstacle would have required the Germans to invade and occupy all of The Netherlands, which it really didn't have troops to do, especially because the Brits would then have been able to invade The Netherlands themselves and thus turn the flank of the Western Front. Besides, whle The Netherlands were neutral, they could trade with the world and the Germans could trade with the Dutch overland, thus circumventing (to some extent) the British blockade. Thus, it was definitely not in Germany's interests to invade The Netherlands, the result being that Antwerp could only built U-boats and torpedoboats for use (via canals) from the smaller Belgian ports.

 

Now, if the 1914 German rush had netted them some ports in France, things would have been different. Maybe. The Germans would still have had to get ships to Cherbourg or Brest, for instance, either through the Channel or north-about, with the RN knowing (thanks to Room 40) that they were coming, and positioned to stop them either way. Plus, Kaiser Bill was quite averse to risking his beautiful ships.

[Mafiozo 0]

Hey buddies. very happy to see the fruitful, interesting discussion that this thread of mine ignited here.

 

I have submitted my paper today - as I said earlier, the paper was mainly an academical writing exercise, very limited in space.

 

the title of the essay was pretty cheesy, but I couldn't help: "Cavaliers of the Sky - Chivalry of Fighter Pilots in WWI", and on the opening page, an illustration named "Voss's Last Flight" by Michael Turner.

 

in the short space I had, I gave a quick introduction detaling the rise of Aviation in WWI, expanding on the amazing speed that characterized the advance of Airplane techonlogy from 1914-1918, quoting a German officer whose name I don't remember (Siegfried/Siegler? I'm sure you'll know) that looking at the airplanes of 1914 from the year 1918, they seemed like an ancient bird.

 

on I went and demonstrated some known "Chivalry" cases, adding the Udet-Guynemer encounter, referring to Billy Bishop's memoirs and to the memoirs of Boris Sergievsky, among other things like trying to explain why pilots painted their planes with colors and other special insignia.

 

my conclusion was that Chivalry did exist in the aerial warfare of WWI, mainly because it was such a new institution. while the men on the ground were hiding IN the ground, pilots faced each other high above in the air in front of thousands of eyes, from both sides of the conflicts. the public and the fighting men themselves needed a "face" in this new faceless war, and the pilots were a good branch of the army to attribute that face to. it was a romantic conjunction that replaced the man and the horse to the man and the flying machine. also, pilots gained mutual respect from understanding the complicated difficulties a piloting career included. however, I finished saying that after all the good words - the object was ultimately to shoot down enemy pilots, and shooting down airplanes in WWI, usually meant death.

 

that's it more or less.

 

Thanks for all of your help, guidance and support. the files here on the site helped me alot.

 

now I'm going to have find myself some time for OFF before the next exam.

 

Cheers!

Edited June 9, 2011 by Mafiozo

[Olham 164]

... while the men on the ground were hiding IN the ground, pilots faced each other high above in the air

in front of thousands of eyes, from both sides of the conflicts. the public and the fighting men themselves

needed a "face" in this new faceless war, and the pilots were a good branch of the army to attribute that face to.

it was a romantic conjunction that replaced the man and the horse to the man and the flying machine.

also, pilots gained mutual respect from understanding the complicated difficulties a piloting career included.

Good points, I'd say! Let's hope your professor is a WW1 aviation freak!