Thread: Events in History

Events in History: 30 years ago

In 1982 Alain Aspect, a then PhD student from France published his "Bell test experiments". These experiments were designed to demonstrate the real world existence of certain theoretical consequences of the phenomenon of entanglement in quantum mechanics which could not possibly occur according to a classical picture of the world, characterised by the notion of local realism.

The experiments were named after physicist Jon Stewart Bell, who in 1964, had written a famous paper called "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox". Bell's paper had become famous because it had presented a clear seperation between local realism and Quantum Mechanics.
It was this seperation that Aspect set out to duplicate with his experiments, but this time using the quantum entanglement of photons instead of electrons.

In his experiments Aspect managed to convincingly demonstrate that using photons he could prove the predictions from Quantum Mechanics were correct in regard to Bell's analogy (based on spin measurements on pairs of entangled electrons) to Einstein Podolsky Rosen's hypothetical paradox that using this reasoning, he had said, a choice of measurement setting here should not affect the outcome of a measurement there (and vice versa) and after providing a mathematical formulation of locality and realism based on this, had showed specific cases where this would have been inconsistent with the predictions of Quantum Mechanics.

As a result of Aspect's and further experiments on Bell's theory the physics community has come to be convinced that local realism is untenable.

Alain Aspect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Events in History: 1000 years ago

In the year 1010 the Hindu Brihadeeswara Temple in Gangai Konda Cholapuram, Tamil Nadu, India was opened to celebrate Raja Raja Chozhan I's ascension to the throne of the Tamil Chola Empire. It is an amazing example of Tamil architecture. The tower extents to a height of 216 feet and is superbly detailed. It is part of a much larger complex that has been added to over the years, but much of the original architecture is still there to marvelled at. The temple part of the complex took 5 years to build and is carved out of granite, 130,000 tons of granite.

Tower:


Temple:


Complex:


Brihadeeswarar Temple - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Events in History: 40 years ago

The year is 1972 and it would be the last time for at least 40 years, probarbly much longer, that man
would set foot on extraterrestrial soil, for this was the year of the last of the Apollo lunar missions.
Apollo 17 crowned what had been a series moon landings for the United States space program run
By NASA. On this final mission 741 individual samples were collected totalling 111 kilograms of
lunar material that included moon rock, soil samples and deep drill core material from 3 metres
below the lunar surface.

Though some have questioned the expense and will shown in the endevour to reach the moon
and cited such soil and rock samples as examples of costly folly, what is the real truth is the
indelible imprint that the lunar missions have left on the physche of all mankind, that yes
we could reach for and indeed did reach the stars. Before he took his final step off the moon,
Eugene Cernan said, "America's challenge of today has forged man's destiny of tomorrow.
And, as we leave the moon at Taurus-Littrow, we leave as we came and, God willing, as we shall
return, with peace and hope for all mankind."

Now the one question left remaining is if and when man will one day return to the moon.

as17-140-21391.jpg ss-121206-apollo-17-02.grid-9x2.jpg

Attachment 1590

Originally Posted by Ascended

Now the one question left remaining is if and when man will one day return to the moon.

as17-140-21391.jpg

I think the real question is what flag he will bring.

The history of writing records the development of expressing language by letters or other marks.^[1] In the history of how systems of representation of language through graphic means have evolved in different human civilizations, more complete writing systems were preceded by proto-writing, systems of ideographic and/or early mnemonic symbol. True writing, in which the entire content of a linguistic utterance is encoded so that another reader can reconstruct, with a fair degree of accuracy, the exact utterance written down, is a later development, and is distinguished from proto-writing which typically avoids encoding grammatical words and affixes, making it difficult or impossible to confidently reconstruct the exact meaning intended by the writer unless a great deal of context is already known in advance. One of the earliest forms of written expression is cuneiform.^[2]


It is generally agreed that true writing of language (not only numbers) was invented independently in at least two places: Mesopotamia (specifically, ancient Sumer) around 3200 BCE and Mesoamerica around 600 BCE. It is believed that writing used in an inscription discovered in Jiroft, Iran came into existence at around the same time as that of Mesopotamia; carbon-14 tests conducted on the layers in which the Jiroft inscription was discovered have dated it to around 2500 BCE.^{[citation needed]} Although such tests have not yet been carried out on Mesopotamian inscriptions, archaeologists believe that Mesopotamia's script goes back to 2600-2700 BCE at most.^{[citation needed]} Twelve Mesoamerican scripts are known, the oldest being from the Olmec or Zapotec of Mexico.
It is debated whether writing were developed completely independently in Egypt around 3200 BCE and China around 1200 BCE, or whether the appearance of writing in either or both places were due to cultural diffusion (i.e. the concept of representing language using writing, if not the specifics of how such a system worked, was brought by traders from an already-literate civilization).

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

The history of writing records the development of expressing language by letters or other marks.^[1] In the history of how systems of representation of language through graphic means have evolved in different human civilizations, more complete writing systems were preceded by proto-writing, systems of ideographic and/or early mnemonic symbol. True writing, in which the entire content of a linguistic utterance is encoded so that another reader can reconstruct, with a fair degree of accuracy, the exact utterance written down, is a later development, and is distinguished from proto-writing which typically avoids encoding grammatical words and affixes, making it difficult or impossible to confidently reconstruct the exact meaning intended by the writer unless a great deal of context is already known in advance. One of the earliest forms of written expression is cuneiform.^[2]


It is generally agreed that true writing of language (not only numbers) was invented independently in at least two places: Mesopotamia (specifically, ancient Sumer) around 3200 BCE and Mesoamerica around 600 BCE. It is believed that writing used in an inscription discovered in Jiroft, Iran came into existence at around the same time as that of Mesopotamia; carbon-14 tests conducted on the layers in which the Jiroft inscription was discovered have dated it to around 2500 BCE.^{[citation needed]} Although such tests have not yet been carried out on Mesopotamian inscriptions, archaeologists believe that Mesopotamia's script goes back to 2600-2700 BCE at most.^{[citation needed]} Twelve Mesoamerican scripts are known, the oldest being from the Olmec or Zapotec of Mexico.
It is debated whether writing were developed completely independently in Egypt around 3200 BCE and China around 1200 BCE, or whether the appearance of writing in either or both places were due to cultural diffusion (i.e. the concept of representing language using writing, if not the specifics of how such a system worked, was brought by traders from an already-literate civilization).

I don't know, perhaps you might want to consider paraphrasing maybe?

I'd think that the written word is one of the most important inventions ever made. Without written words you can't ever convey much from genertion to generation and we all need knowledge to learn how to do things as well as understand history.

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

I'd think that the written word is one of the most important inventions ever made. Without written words you can't ever convey much from genertion to generation and we all need knowledge to learn how to do things as well as understand history.

I agree. Partly...I mean without the written statement words dont realise their full potential.
You wont believe this but I created a new class of statements

Originally Posted by sigurdV

You wont believe this but I created a new class of statements

You are mistaken. Many people were talking nonsense before you came on the scene.

Antiseptics
Joseph Lister


Until Lister's studies of surgery most people believed that chemical damage from exposures to bad air (see "miasma") was responsible for infections in wounds. Hospital wards were occasionally aired out at midday as a precaution against the spread of infection via miasma, but facilities for washing hands or a patient's wounds were not available. A surgeon was not required to wash his hands before seeing a patient because such practices were not considered necessary to avoid infection. In 1871 a guest wrote that Lister regularly “wore an old blue frock-coat for operation, which he had previously worn in the dissecting room," and which was "stiff and glazed with blood." Dirty coats were seen as a sign of a surgeon’s knowledge and experience, and the smell was referred to as “good old surgical stink.” Despite the work of Ignaz Semmelweis and Oliver Wendell Holmes, hospitals practiced surgery under unsanitary conditions.
While he was a professor of surgery at the University of Glasgow, Lister became aware of a paper published by the French chemist Louis Pasteur, showing that rotting and fermentation could occur under anaerobic conditions if micro-organisms were present. Pasteur suggested three methods to eliminate the micro-organisms responsible for gangrene: filtration, exposure to heat, or exposure to chemical solutions. Lister confirmed Pasteur's conclusions with his own experiments and decided to use his findings to develop antiseptic techniques for wounds. As the first two methods suggested by Pasteur were inappropriate for the treatment of human tissue, Lister experimented with the third.

WIKI

Events in History: 500 years ago

It was 500 years ago that Juan Ponce de León first discovered Florida, on the 2nd of April 1513. He went on to claim it for the Spanish Crown.

Born in 1474 Juan originally came from a small village Valladolid province of nothern Spain. Born to a noble family Juan's first real experience of life was fighting in Spanish campaigns against the Moors in Granada. By 1492 the wars had ended with victory and a once again truely spanish Spain. So Juan looked else where for adventure, and in September 1493 joined Christopher Columbus for his second voyage to the New World. In November 1493 they reached the Caribbean and while making their way to Hispaniola visited other islands including Puerto Rico.

By 1508 Juan had married and had four children, three daughters, Juana, Isabel and Maria and a son Luis. It would be only a short time later that in 1509 he would go on to become the first Governor of Puerto Rico.

And on March 3, 1513, with blessings of the King, Juan Ponce de Leon, organized and equipped three ships which commenced an expedition departing from Punta Aguada in Puerto Rico. Juan took christianity, cattle, horses and sheep with him to Florida and course he introduced the Spanish language. His discovery is of course still celebrated to this day and he will always be remembered as the man who discovered it.

Florida — History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts

http://www.floridahistory.org/

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by sigurdV

You wont believe this but I created a new class of statements

You are mistaken. Many people were talking nonsense before you came on the scene.

Ha! I didnt see this before.
The obvious riposte is that you are not the first who is deluded by preconcieved notions!
Be that as it may. I shall explain. Not for you, really, but for other readers:

1 There are two classes of sentences:
Sentences and metasentences.
I suspect john is too daft to know the difference
without writing it on his nose...
So Ill give a more formal definition:

2 If for any sentence,x, there is a Z
such that x="xZ" then x is a self referential sentence.

3 If x is not a selfreferential sentence
then x is an ordinary sentence, or not a sentence.

I have now formed a segment of a larger theory.
I will not at the moment try to continue
by presenting that larger theory.

I will instead point out that the given segment
can be applied not only to sentences but also to theories:

A theory not about theories (like physics) obviously is ordinary .
But it is sometimes thought that physics is the basic theory
which forms the foundation of ALL other theories
including the theory of how mind creates theories
if that is true then physics becomes a self referential theory.

Now lets pause to hear John say: Nonsense! It makes him so happy.
The sentences I have invented awaits us next in the development of this "basic" theory.

Perhaps you should move our posts into lingustics John?
Our conversation (?) does not have much to do with History.
There is a Historical chain from Frege to, say , Davidson or Chomsky but I will not highlight it.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Perhaps you should move our posts into lingustics John?

There is not currently a Linguistics subforum, although it has been suggested. You are the strongest argument yet against having one.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by sigurdV

You wont believe this but I created a new class of statements

You are mistaken. Many people were talking nonsense before you came on the scene.

Ha! I didnt see this before.
The obvious riposte is that you are not the first who is deluded by preconcieved notions!
Be that as it may. I shall explain. Not for you, really, but for other readers:

1 There are two classes of sentences:
Sentences and metasentences.
I suspect john is too daft to know the difference
without writing it on his nose...
So Ill give a more formal definition:

2 If for any sentence,x, there is a Z
such that x="xZ" then x is a self referential sentence.

3 If x is not a selfreferential sentence
then x is an ordinary sentence, or not a sentence.

I have now formed a segment of a larger theory.
I will not at the moment try to continue
by presenting that larger theory.

I will instead point out that the given segment
can be applied not only to sentences but also to theories:

A theory not about theories (like physics) obviously is ordinary .
But it is sometimes thought that physics is the basic theory
which forms the foundation of ALL other theories
including the theory of how mind creates theories
if that is true then physics becomes a self referential theory.

Now lets pause to hear John say: Nonsense! It makes him so happy.
The sentences I have invented awaits us later in the development of this "basic" theory.

Perhaps you should move our posts into lingustics John?
Our conversation (?) does not have much to do with History.
There is a Historical chain from Frege to, say , Davidson or Chomsky but I will not highlight it.

If you're hoping this post will go down as an event in history it might need a bit more work there sigurd.

What! Immediate reactions? Well then. Ill continue:

So far I see no opposition. I see slander but that is expected in here.
So lacking serious arguments to refute I simply go on.

Sentenses are either true or not...how do we tell?
For selfreferential sentences the procedure is straight forward
since they belong to the Historical class of Analytic Sentences.

1 This is not a sentence.
2 The word "This" in sentence one refer to "This is not a sentence."
3"This is not a sentence."is not a sentence.

Now we can see by inspection that "This is not a sentence." is not true!
Note that we need not leave the sentence and find objects outside it!
The elements for deciding its truth are WITHIN the sentence.

So is the case for all elements of the class of self referential sentences.
What happens if we try to apply the procedure for ordinary sentences?

1 The sun contains hydrogen.
2 the sun = ...?...
Here we run into a problem how is the sun to be put into the sentence so we can inspect it?
We cant continue the procedure can we? If we do we get only this:
3 ...?... contains hydrogen.

All elements needed to decide the truth of the sentence are NOT found WITHIN the sentence.
Here is my astonishing solution to the problem:

Let the expression #x# be understood as the action
to put the object represented by x
into the space in the sentence that the expression #x# occupies.

Now we can do what we could not do before!

1 The sun contains hydrogen.
2 the sun = #the sun#
3 #the sun# contains hydrogen.

We inspect #the sun# and verifies that it contains hydrogen so the sentence is true.

Sentences two and three did not exist before...
They are elements of a new class of sentences defined by me.

And I sincerely do hope my coming dissertation
makes history elsewhere than in here.
(This was but a segment from it.)

Originally Posted by sigurdV

What! Immediate reactions? Well then. Ill continue:

What does this pseudo-philosophical rambling have to do with the subject of this thread?

Um...
Meaning, Use, a Nd Interpretation of Language - Google Books
for example.
And I used the term "statement about a statement" [metastatement] in a post that was a reply to you a week or two back.
You could try reading some Hofstadter.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Um...
Meaning, Use, a Nd Interpretation of Language - Google Books
for example.
And I used the term "statement about a statement" [metastatement] in a post that was a reply to you a week or two back.
You could try reading some Hofstadter.

And I didnt react : WOW! Dywyddyr KNOWS about Meta statements!
Why dont you ask if I have Goedel Escher and Bach on my shelf?
Do you have "The Semantic conception of truth" by Alfred Tarski in yours?
Or Principia Mathematica by Russell and Whitehead?

Both use a type theoretic approach...its been quite popular.
Please look at the statements presented in here... NOT at ME!
So far not ONE error of mine in them sentences is pointed out!
Please tell me what is wrong with them, not how you feel about them!

Just for fun Dywyddyr no prestige involved, here are some easy and interesting questions for you:
What concept, at least according to Goedel, is the most important of Russells investigations
in the field of analysis of the concepts of formal logics?
What concept of mine is in contrast to that concept?
Then explain the difference between Donaldsons and Tarskis approaches to the Definition of Truth.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

So far not ONE error of mine in them sentences is pointed out!

The error is posting the same pseudo-philosophical babble in every thread that attracts your attention, whether relevant or not.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by sigurdV

So far not ONE error of mine in them sentences is pointed out!

The error is posting the same pseudo-philosophical babble in every thread that attracts your attention, whether relevant or not.

(Yawn!) Admit it: You love my words. But they will never be yours

In India in 1674 Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj was crowned the King Of Hindus and he played an important part in ending the atrocious reign of Moghuls (who were Muslims).

Events in History: 100 years ago

Exactly one hundred years ago from today, on the 10th of August 1913 the Treaty of Bucharest was signed. It was really just an amendment from the first treaty to signed after the end of the First Balkans War. Yet the first treaty, The Treaty of London, showed echoes of what was later to been seen in the aftermath of the First World War with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, that of disatisfaction which would go on to spark another war.

It was Bulgaria who was dissatisfied with its gains in the First Balkan War, and then subsequent Treaty of London, that started the Second Balkan War in June of 1913.
They felt that both Greece and Spain had achieved to many gains in Macedonia and sort retribution against their former alies with a suprise attack. But the attack were driven back, and the Greek and Serbian armies invaded Bulgarian held territory in return. At the same time, the Ottomans advanced into Eastern Thrace and retook Adrianople, while Romania used the opportunity to invade Bulgaria from the north and advance against little opposition to within a short distance of the Bulgarian capital, Sofia. Isolated and surrounded by a more powerful coalition of opponents, Bulgaria was forced to agree to a truce and to peace negotiations to be held in the Romanian capital, Bucharest.

Perhaps if the world had being paying a little more attention 6 years later in June of 1919, during the signing of The Treaty of Versailles, then the horrors and bloodshed of the Second World War might have been avoided entirely. On this occasion history sort to teach us a lesson, a lesson which we did not learn and payed a terrible price as the consequence.

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

I'd think that the written word is one of the most important inventions ever made. Without written words you can't ever convey much from genertion to generation and we all need knowledge to learn how to do things as well as understand history.

I agree. I also think the spoken word deserves credence. It often brings people to search for the written word.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by sigurdV

You wont believe this but I created a new class of statements

You are mistaken. Many people were talking nonsense before you came on the scene.

Ha! I didnt see this before.
The obvious riposte is that you are not the first who is deluded by preconcieved notions!
Be that as it may. I shall explain. Not for you, really, but for other readers:

1 There are two classes of sentences:
Sentences and metasentences.
I suspect john is too daft to know the difference
without writing it on his nose...
So Ill give a more formal definition:

2 If for any sentence,x, there is a Z
such that x="xZ" then x is a self referential sentence.

3 If x is not a selfreferential sentence
then x is an ordinary sentence, or not a sentence.

I have now formed a segment of a larger theory.
I will not at the moment try to continue
by presenting that larger theory.

I will instead point out that the given segment
can be applied not only to sentences but also to theories:

A theory not about theories (like physics) obviously is ordinary .
But it is sometimes thought that physics is the basic theory
which forms the foundation of ALL other theories
including the theory of how mind creates theories
if that is true then physics becomes a self referential theory.

Now lets pause to hear John say: Nonsense! It makes him so happy.
The sentences I have invented awaits us next in the development of this "basic" theory.

Perhaps you should move our posts into lingustics John?
Our conversation (?) does not have much to do with History.
There is a Historical chain from Frege to, say , Davidson or Chomsky but I will not highlight it.

It looks like you've invented a new way of organizing your thoughts, Sigurd.

However you didn't invent the concept of thought organization itself, so I think the best you're going to be able to hope for is a design patent.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

[Now lets pause to hear John say: Nonsense! It makes him so happy.

This is true. Henceforth, any who would be my followers should pause on the third day of the ninth month when, at the time when badgers are most somnolent, they shall declaim as follows:

Yon vassal rank, yclept Sigurd
Must hither run, as to afford,
So nunsense we can yall agree,
Nay rumberkinders ever be.


Ah, yes. The old ways are the best.

then there is my way of expressing words, which is...if I am looking at it as a line and not grammatically how will I phrase it? will......I say... yes, I shall do that...or yes........I...shall do that....

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by sigurdV

You wont believe this but I created a new class of statements

You are mistaken. Many people were talking nonsense before you came on the scene.

Ha! I didnt see this before.
The obvious riposte is that you are not the first who is deluded by preconcieved notions!
Be that as it may. I shall explain. Not for you, really, but for other readers:

1 There are two classes of sentences:
Sentences and metasentences.
I suspect john is too daft to know the difference
without writing it on his nose...
So Ill give a more formal definition:

2 If for any sentence,x, there is a Z
such that x="xZ" then x is a self referential sentence.

3 If x is not a selfreferential sentence
then x is an ordinary sentence, or not a sentence.

I have now formed a segment of a larger theory.
I will not at the moment try to continue
by presenting that larger theory.

I will instead point out that the given segment
can be applied not only to sentences but also to theories:

A theory not about theories (like physics) obviously is ordinary .
But it is sometimes thought that physics is the basic theory
which forms the foundation of ALL other theories
including the theory of how mind creates theories
if that is true then physics becomes a self referential theory.

Now lets pause to hear John say: Nonsense! It makes him so happy.
The sentences I have invented awaits us next in the development of this "basic" theory.

Perhaps you should move our posts into lingustics John?
Our conversation (?) does not have much to do with History.
There is a Historical chain from Frege to, say , Davidson or Chomsky but I will not highlight it.

It looks like you've invented a new way of organizing your thoughts, Sigurd.

However you didn't invent the concept of thought organization itself, so I think the best you're going to be able to hope for is a design patent.

I sound crazier than I am...Sorry!
I need no protection, but thanks for the tip


Noam Chomsky "Grammar, Mind and Body- A Personal View" - YouTube



Noam Chomsky "Grammar, Mind and Body- A Personal View"
www.youtube.comNoam Chomsky speaks about language and philosophy as part of the Dean's Lecture Series.

Events in history: November 11th 1918 the first world war came to an end

In railway carriage belonging to the French Marshal Ferdinand Foch in the forrest of Compiégne 40 miles north of Paris an armistice agreement was signed that would see all fighting cease at the 11th hour (French time) on the 11th day of the 11th month. This had been one of the bloodiest conflicts in human history with a civillian & military death toll estimated at more than 16 million and many millions more left wounded.

The signing of the armistice marked the effective surrender of all the German forces, but it would not be until the signing of the Treaty Versailles in 1919 that Germany would find out the true price it would have to pay for losing the war.

A war that had started with an assassination and had dragged on for 4 long years finally came to it's close. Though initially called the European War by the United Stated, even they couldn't escape it and would eventually be drawn into a war which now saw combatants from nearly every corner of the globe making it truely the world's first World War.

Perhaps rather ironically given their initial reluctance to become embroiled in what they had believed to be a European conflict it was actually the addition of American troops and resources into the western front that finally helped tip the scale in the Allies favour. With a hopeless lack of men and supplies things looked bleak for the Central Powers and rather than continue fighting on in the face of an imminent invasion they chose to surrender.

With the benefit of hindsight it's possible to look back and question what was actually gained from such a devastating conflict when even the victors gained what can only be described as pyrrhic victory.

Originally Posted by Ascended

Events in history: November 11th 1918 the first world war came to an end

In railway carriage belonging to the French Marshal Ferdinand Foch in the forrest of Compiégne 40 miles north of Paris an armistice agreement was signed that would see all fighting cease at the 11th hour (French time) on the 11th day of the 11th month. This had been one of the bloodiest conflicts in human history with a civillian & military death toll estimated at more than 16 million and many millions more left wounded.

The signing of the armistice marked the effective surrender of all the German forces, but it would not be until the signing of the Treaty Versailles in 1919 that Germany would find out the true price it would have to pay for losing the war.

A war that had started with an assassination and had dragged on for 4 long years finally came to it's close. Though initially called the European War by the United Stated, even they couldn't escape it and would eventually be drawn into a war which now saw combatants from nearly every corner of the globe making it truely the world's first World War.

Perhaps rather ironically given their initial reluctance to become embroiled in what they had believed to be a European conflict it was actually the addition of American troops and resources into the western front that finally helped tip the scale in the Allies favour. With a hopeless lack of men and supplies things looked bleak for the Central Powers and rather than continue fighting on in the face of an imminent invasion they chose to surrender.

With the benefit of hindsight it's possible to look back and question what was actually gained from such a devastating conflict when even the victors gained what can only be described as pyrrhic victory.

Thanks for sharing!

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by Ascended

Events in history: November 11th 1918 the first world war came to an end

In railway carriage belonging to the French Marshal Ferdinand Foch in the forrest of Compiégne 40 miles north of Paris an armistice agreement was signed that would see all fighting cease at the 11th hour (French time) on the 11th day of the 11th month. This had been one of the bloodiest conflicts in human history with a civillian & military death toll estimated at more than 16 million and many millions more left wounded.

The signing of the armistice marked the effective surrender of all the German forces, but it would not be until the signing of the Treaty Versailles in 1919 that Germany would find out the true price it would have to pay for losing the war.

A war that had started with an assassination and had dragged on for 4 long years finally came to it's close. Though initially called the European War by the United Stated, even they couldn't escape it and would eventually be drawn into a war which now saw combatants from nearly every corner of the globe making it truely the world's first World War.

Perhaps rather ironically given their initial reluctance to become embroiled in what they had believed to be a European conflict it was actually the addition of American troops and resources into the western front that finally helped tip the scale in the Allies favour. With a hopeless lack of men and supplies things looked bleak for the Central Powers and rather than continue fighting on in the face of an imminent invasion they chose to surrender.

With the benefit of hindsight it's possible to look back and question what was actually gained from such a devastating conflict when even the victors gained what can only be described as pyrrhic victory.

Thanks for sharing!

22 years later Hitler made sure the French signed the terms for the surrender of France in the same rail car.

Another way of looking at the events, would be to see ww1 ending with the marshal plan. Something about being magnanimous in victory?

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by Ascended

Events in history: November 11th 1918 the first world war came to an end

In railway carriage belonging to the French Marshal Ferdinand Foch in the forrest of Compiégne 40 miles north of Paris an armistice agreement was signed that would see all fighting cease at the 11th hour (French time) on the 11th day of the 11th month. This had been one of the bloodiest conflicts in human history with a civillian & military death toll estimated at more than 16 million and many millions more left wounded.

The signing of the armistice marked the effective surrender of all the German forces, but it would not be until the signing of the Treaty Versailles in 1919 that Germany would find out the true price it would have to pay for losing the war.

A war that had started with an assassination and had dragged on for 4 long years finally came to it's close. Though initially called the European War by the United Stated, even they couldn't escape it and would eventually be drawn into a war which now saw combatants from nearly every corner of the globe making it truely the world's first World War.

Perhaps rather ironically given their initial reluctance to become embroiled in what they had believed to be a European conflict it was actually the addition of American troops and resources into the western front that finally helped tip the scale in the Allies favour. With a hopeless lack of men and supplies things looked bleak for the Central Powers and rather than continue fighting on in the face of an imminent invasion they chose to surrender.

With the benefit of hindsight it's possible to look back and question what was actually gained from such a devastating conflict when even the victors gained what can only be described as pyrrhic victory.

Thanks for sharing!

22 years later Hitler made sure the French signed the terms for the surrender of France in the same rail car.

Interesting!

Originally Posted by sculptor

Another way of looking at the events, would be to see ww1 ending with the marshal plan. Something about being magnanimous in victory?

Never thought of it that way. Thanks for the insight.