Sunken WWI U-Boats a Bonanza For Historians

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sunken WWI U-Boats a Bonanza For Historians

Posted by samzenpus on Sunday July 21, 2013 @10:20AM from the dive-dive-dive dept.

schwit1 writes "Archaeologists have found the rusting remains of 44 submarines off the United Kingdom's coast, an oceanic graveyard made up mostly of vessels from the German Imperial Navy dating to World War I. Der Spiegel reports a quartet of divers are now at work probing the massive trove of 41 German U-boats, and a trio of English submarines, found at depths of up to 50 feet, off England's southern and eastern coasts. 'We owe it to these people to tell their story.' says archaeologist Mark Dunkley."

161 comments

We can thank the code breakers by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-21 10:27 · Score: -1, Offtopic

Alan Turing should be pardoned because he helped the war effort do this.
1. Re:We can thank the code breakers by NobleSavage · 2013-07-21 10:31 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  That was WWII not WWI.
2. Re:We can thank the code breakers by Longjmp · 2013-07-21 10:33 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Oh yes, Turing was a genius, helping to sink German U-Boats at the age of 6 ;)
  
  --
  There are fewer illiterates than people who can't read.
3. Re:We can thank the code breakers by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-21 10:35 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  Don't expect that to make a difference. People here just want to shout Turing's name from the rooftops as loud as they can. It's like the fucks who claim that Tesla invented alternating current... they don't give a fuck about the facts. They just want to act intelligent by being ignorant assholes.
4. Re:We can thank the code breakers by smittyoneeach · 2013-07-21 11:27 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Don't you get on Al Gore's internet* and start blathering about facts, young man.
  
  *Al Gore did not invent the internet. This reply is meant for humorous value in this specific context only, and is not intended for use in a factual exchange.
  
  --
  Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
5. Re:We can thank the code breakers by quantumred · 2013-07-21 11:37 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Initially I thought the same thing, but it really is WW1 and not WW2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-boat_Campaign_(World_War_I)
6. Re:We can thank the code breakers by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-21 11:58 · Score: 1
  
  **nor did he ever claim to have invented it.
7. Re:We can thank the code breakers by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-21 12:27 · Score: -1
  
  Where in that page us Turing mentioned?
8. Re:We can thank the code breakers by MightyMartian · 2013-07-21 12:38 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  I'm not clear here. Are you asserting Turing didn't 1. play a substantial role in the war effort through his work at Bletchley Park and 2. play a significant role in the development of the digital computer?
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
9. Re:We can thank the code breakers by Zemran · 2013-07-21 12:55 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  3. play a substantial role in the war effort in WWI.
  
  --
  I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
10. Re:We can thank the code breakers by smittyoneeach · 2013-07-21 13:01 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
  
  --
  Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
11. Re:We can thank the code breakers by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-21 14:11 · Score: -1
  
  The article is about WW1 not WW2.
12. Re:We can thank the code breakers by jeremyp · 2013-07-21 23:44 · Score: 0
  
  Nope. There were U-boats in World War 1.
  In fact, the German unrestricted U-boat campaign of 1917 was one of the reasons why the USA entered the war.
  
  --
  All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
13. Re:We can thank the code breakers by plopez · 2013-07-22 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  Don't you know it was replaced by tubes a long time ago?
  
  --
  putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
14. Re:We can thank the code breakers by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-22 08:12 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, the tubes are old hat!
  It's all been replaced by an XML-RPC lattice.
15. Re:We can thank the code breakers by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-22 12:04 · Score: 0
  
  In fact, the German unrestricted U-boat campaign of 1917 was one of the reasons why the USA entered the war.
  That's a huge over-simplification. More can, and should, be said about this.
  The British blockaded German (and neutral) ports as part of their war strategy, using their surface fleet.
  Incidentally, years before the war, the British had refused to sign a treaty that allowed medical supplies and food to pass through blockages, something that would never be tolerated today. Both food and medical supplies were blockaded. Goods for neutral ports in nations within shipping distance of Germany were blocked as well, to prevent those goods from being re-sold by the neutrals to the Germans. It was just too bad if the neutrals actually needed any of those goods for their own use.
  The Germans in turn blockaded Britain using their submarines.
  This was unacceptable to many US industrialists. The British had enormous wealth from their empire, and were prepared to buy large amounts of munitions from the US, at a substantial profit to the industrialists.
  The Germans, on the other hand, weren't in the market for large amounts of US munitions. Their chemical industry was capable of making its own munitions.
  In fact the pre-war British army heavily depended upon German imports for its ammunition, a point the cretins who pushed Britain into the conflict somehow failed to consider in their rush to go to war, and one of the reasons -- aside from gross military incompetence -- the British were so desperate for munitions.
  The US industrialists were not about to accept the loss of the enormous profits to be made by selling arms to Britain. They went screaming to the press and the government about the Germans infringing "freedom of the seas" and the evil "U-boat menace", but were strangely silent about the British limiting that same freedom. Since some of these same industrialists owned a number of key press organizations, it wasn't hard for them to find a sympathetic reporters and editors to make sure the story was spun the right way.
  As part of the strategy to put pressure on Germany to allow sales of munitions to Britain, incidents such as the Lusitania sinking were deliberately blown out of proportion. The Lusitania was described as an innocent passenger ship, sunk by the cold-hearted Germans. In reality, the ship was built for conversion to a merchant cruiser, and was listed in the German fleet list for the British navy as a merchant cruiser. While the ship was carrying civilian passengers, it also was carrying vast amounts of munitions at the time it was sunk (carefully disguised in the cargo manifest as cheese and butter, being shipped in vast quantities in -- unrefrigerated -- cargo holds with the destination listed as the Royal Weapons Testing Establishment, which was apparently short of dairy products!). The presence of munitions on the ship was confirmed by divers in 2008. Further, during the war the British routinely used liners as troop transports, moving hundreds of thousands of troops from throughout their empire to France to fight in the battles there, making a "liner" a legitimate military target by any standard.
  For a while, the strategy worked. The Germans were convinced to back off from their naval blockade, while the British one continued unimpeded.
  Eventually, the Germans got tired of putting up with this sort of cynical double dealing and re-imposed the U-Boat blockage. The US industrialists them pushed the US into war, allowing them to sell even more weapons.
16. Re: We can thank the code breakers by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-22 22:42 · Score: 0
  
  They had code breakers in WWI as well, or did you think code breaking was a new invention
U-BOATS SCHTINKIN !! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-21 10:30 · Score: 0

Been to the Chicago one !!
It stinks !!
Imagine the WWI stink !!
1. Re:U-BOATS SCHTINKIN !! by Deadstick · 2013-07-21 11:00 · Score: 2
  
  They didn't call them pigboats for nothing.
UB 40 by Longjmp · 2013-07-21 10:36 · Score: 4, Funny

From the article:

Dunkley and his team of divers found UB 17 off England's east coast, [...]
Let me know when they find UB 40 ...

--
There are fewer illiterates than people who can't read.
1. Re:UB 40 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-21 10:44 · Score: -1
  
  Sunk in the English Channel by a mine, you fucking dumb faggot.
2. Re:UB 40 by Longjmp · 2013-07-21 10:55 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Sunk in the English Channel by a mine, you fucking dumb faggot.
  Nope, my intellectually challenged friend, UB40 went down when Ali Campbell left the ship (I think 2008)
  :p
  
  --
  There are fewer illiterates than people who can't read.
3. Re:UB 40 by gallondr00nk · 2013-07-21 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  Let me know when they find UB 40 ...
  Let me know when they sink UB 40.
4. Re:UB 40 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-21 11:53 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  Haha you got owned you stupid piece of shit donkey dick sucking whorebag.
5. Re:UB 40 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-21 12:26 · Score: 0
  
  "The wreck of UB-40 is located & identified by divers in the recent years" from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM_UB-40
  -SH
6. Re:UB 40 by solanum · 2013-07-21 13:19 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Just to be clear, for people not alive in the UK in the 80s the name of the band UB40 came from the code on the unemployment benefit form.
  
  --
  Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
7. Re:UB 40 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-21 16:21 · Score: 0
  
  Where were you when "Red, Red Wine" came out, that sunk UB 40 completely.
8. Re:UB 40 by Opportunist · 2013-07-21 16:59 · Score: 1, Redundant
  
  At least one person got the joke.
  You really know you're old if you're one of the few who get a joke that relies on part of your music culture.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
9. Re:UB 40 by OhANameWhatName · 2013-07-21 19:00 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Just to be clear, for people not alive in the UK in the 80s the name of the band UB40 came from the code on the unemployment benefit form
  You owe me a new geek credibility meter.
10. Re:UB 40 by plopez · 2013-07-22 01:28 · Score: 1
  
  I was thinking the British band... http://www.ub40.co.uk/
  
  --
  putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
11. Re:UB 40 by Anne_Nonymous · 2013-07-22 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  >> Let me know when they find UB 40 ...
  The boat you're thinking of is U2. UB40 was shot down over Soviet Russia (anyone, anyone...) in 1960.
12. Re:UB 40 by Muad'Dave · 2013-07-22 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  Let me know when they find UB 40 ...
  When they do, it'll be filled with several vintages of "Red Red Wine" - vintages released every few years.
  
  --
  Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
A few more by b4upoo · 2013-07-21 10:45 · Score: 0

To all our soldiers who fought and suffered in that war a few more sunken U-Boats would feel better yet. Wretched wars that did nothing but evil should never have existed.
1. Re: A few more by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-21 10:49 · Score: 0
  
  Illuminati blood sacrifice to their gods. That was what they did and still do.
2. Re: A few more by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-21 10:57 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  Fuck you. If your country was being invaded or your people were being murdered wholesale you'd pray for a war to end it.
  
  Fucking retarded fucks don't give a fuck about reality. They want a land of milk and honey but they don't want to work for it.
  
  Go take another dick in the ass.
3. Re: A few more by Deadstick · 2013-07-21 11:02 · Score: 1
  
  I feel as if I just woke up in a beer bar between football games...
4. Re: A few more by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-21 11:19 · Score: -1
  
  I feel as if I just woke up at a faggot convention where dipsticks pay fags to shit on their faces. Step along asshole.
5. Re: A few more by CohibaVancouver · 2013-07-21 11:42 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  If your country was being invaded or your people were being murdered wholesale you'd pray for a war to end it.
  
  Fucking retarded fucks don't give a fuck about reality.
  
  Look you f*cking retarded Anonymous Coward f*ck who doesn't give a f*ck about reality - Read a history book.
  
  World War I had nothing to do with countries being invaded and citizens being murdered. It was all about the aristocracy sending young boys to their death due to antiquated treaties signed by the same aristocrats. It carried on for years, with boys being shot, gassed and suffering terribly so those same SOBs could save face.
6. Re: A few more by Mashiki · 2013-07-21 12:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  World War I had nothing to do with countries being invaded and citizens being murdered. It was all about the aristocracy sending young boys to their death due to antiquated treaties signed by the same aristocrats. It carried on for years, with boys being shot, gassed and suffering terribly so those same SOBs could save face.
  It had all to do with 40 years of nationalism, an assassination and automatic mobilization of ones military. With a base policy of self-reinforcing militarization and mobilization. If you don't have any idea what that last sentence means, it means that x country would deploy 5k troops, you'd deploy 10k, they'd deploy 15k, and and a destroyer. So you'd deploy another 20k and two destroyers and a dreadnaught. Then, you'd start building more ships, more guns, and so on.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
7. Re: A few more by fnj · 2013-07-21 12:32 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  World War I had nothing to do with countries being invaded and citizens being murdered. It was all about the aristocracy sending young boys to their death due to antiquated treaties signed by the same aristocrats. It carried on for years, with boys being shot, gassed and suffering terribly so those same SOBs could save face.
  Basically all too true, and I couldn't agree more with the general distinction, but it wasn't that cut and dried. When you use the phrase "nothing to do with" you do need to be careful. It didn't hold a candle to the the devastation of civilian populations in WW2, but it was bad enough in its own right.
  DIRECT civilians deaths DUE TO MILITARY ACTION in WW1
  Russian Empire 500,000
  Romania 120,000
  Austria-Hungary 120,000
  France 40,000
  German Empire 1,000
  Excess deaths due to famine, disease, etc attributable to the war:
  Ottoman Empire 2,150,000
  Russian Empire 1,000,000
  Italy 585,000
  German Empire 425,000
  Austria-Hungary 347,000
  Romania 330,000
  Serbia 300,000
  France 260,000
  UK 107,000
  Bulgaria 100,000
  A global total of 950,000 direct civilian deaths plus 5,900,000 indirect civilian deaths was a "good" warmup for WW2 with its 38 to 55 million civilian deaths. Since the bulk of the civilian hurt didn't come down on the UK and France, and the worst of it not even on Germany, it gets overlooked, but I doubt if the people of Russia and Turkey will ever forget what their forebears went through.
8. Re: A few more by number11 · 2013-07-21 12:44 · Score: 1
  
  To all our soldiers who fought and suffered in that war a few more sunken U-Boats would feel better yet. Wretched wars that did nothing but evil should never have existed.
  For certain values of "our".
  Most wars do nothing but evil.
9. Re: A few more by MightyMartian · 2013-07-21 12:47 · Score: 1
  
  So Germany invading Belgium despite Britain's guarantee to Belgium and France had nothing to do with the war.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
10. Re: A few more by cold+fjord · 2013-07-21 15:39 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  World War One not only set the stage for World War Two, but it resulted in issues that plague us to this very day. The first world war ultimately lead to the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, and the Islamic Caliphate government in 1923. One of the key goals of Islamist extremists, in particular al Qaida as they are fighting today, is to reestablish the Caliphate, and from there rebuild an Islamic empire. By similar token, the Ottoman Empire was carved up in such a fashion that there will likely be no end of conflict in the Middle East for the foreseeable future.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
11. Re: A few more by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-21 16:19 · Score: -1
  
  You seem to know a lot about these faggot conventions.
12. Re: A few more by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-21 16:31 · Score: 0
  
  Go easy on the lad, he's likely a philosophy major and looking at a job in the "fast food"/"take away" field, post graduation.
13. Re: A few more by Shompol · 2013-07-21 16:50 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Your forgot to mention rise of Communism in Russia. Not only did Germany directly sponsor the movement, but the war weakened Russian Empire enough to make toppling the government possible.
14. Re: A few more by Opportunist · 2013-07-21 17:24 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  World War 1 set the stage for pretty much everything that happened in the 20th century. Europe was VASTLY different before WW1 than it was after. Before, Europe was mostly a collection of a few large "global players". Afterwards some of them (most noticeably Autria-Hungary) dissolved into a sizable amount of smaller countries. That tilted the balance of stability considerably, with all of the remaining imperial superpowers trying to gain a hold of the newly created smaller states.
  France wanted to subdue Germany forever, but only managed to set the stage for the rise of Hitler and WW2 in the process by creating a lot of hatred and an urge to get revenge on the other side of the Rhine.
  The fall of the czarist Empire in Russia and the rise of the Soviet Union would not have happened, or at the very least would not have happened so easily and quickly, without WW1. It's actually likely that some kind of revolution would have happened, but without WW1 the other conservative absolutist monarchies (notably Germany and Austria-Hungary) would probably have intervened at the side of the Czar, like it was the other way around in 1848 during the uprisings in those countries, containing the revolution.
  The fall of the Ottoman Empire mostly led first to the "winners" splitting up those areas between them, which we still can see in the Middle East, and which still causes trouble to this day. Of course islamist organizations want to reestablish the rule of the Islam, I just kinda doubt that they'd be very happy with the Caliphate that ruled the Ottoman Empire in the end. The zeal seems more to be that those areas should be put back under Islam rule, no matter in what kind of state, as long as the Sharia is the law.
  Another important aspect of WW1 is actually that the USA came out of its Monroe Doctrine, its self-declared isolation and its decision to avoid interfering with European politics. That is, IMO, one of the most often overlooked and actually one of the more important effects of WW1: The US decided to be a global force. Of course WW2 ended the idea that a country like the US could abstain from international politics for good, but WW1 certainly put the first crack into that shell.
  I think WW1 and its effects is easily overlooked and it sure is overshadowed by WW2, its effects and atrocities, not to mention that WW2 is not only closer to today but also without doubt the war that the US was a lot more involved with, but the effects it had on Europe were quite on par with those WW2 had.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
15. Re: A few more by linhares · 2013-07-21 17:30 · Score: 1
  
  you're talking about proximate causes
16. Re: A few more by cold+fjord · 2013-07-21 19:03 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  I'm sure your post will be a crowd pleaser. I'm curious, will you be bringing anything even close to that sort of understanding to future discussions touching on the almost unparalleled scale of mass murder and repression in the Soviet Union? Based on your previous comments its almost like you'd either never heard of it, or considered it insignificant.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
17. Re: A few more by dbIII · 2013-07-21 21:10 · Score: 1
  
  It's a given and there is other stuff going on in the world. Just because the USA is still obsessed with Hitler doesn't change that the rest of the world sees Stalin the same way and is amazed that people in the USA haven't caught up yet.
  So just take it as read that the USSR was a disaster, that we all know that already, and please let us discuss other stuff.
18. Re: A few more by DarkOx · 2013-07-21 21:56 · Score: 2
  
  We do see Stalin the same way, well those who no who he was. There was even thinking of continuing WWII and turning on Russia after the fall of Germany in some America circles. The reality I think for most Americans is that the USSR was the existential threat to us that Hitler's Germany was to Europe and North Africa. We just don't like to talk about because its what had us cowering under tables for 30 years and seeing spies around every corner.
  Stalin and Kruschev(sp?) are unpleasant memories
  
  --
  Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
19. Re: A few more by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-22 01:29 · Score: 0
  
  Was Mr. Krushev really so bad, after all his progeny was Putin, and as a leader, he seems more open then Bush/Obama.
20. Re: A few more by plopez · 2013-07-22 01:34 · Score: 1
  
  And rampant profiteering by the military-industrial complex
  
  --
  putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
21. Re: A few more by dbIII · 2013-07-22 01:48 · Score: 1
  
  Really strong evidence against that is that Saddam liked to compare himself to Stalin but that wasn't enough for the US media - they had to compare him to Hitler instead.
22. Re: A few more by Opportunist · 2013-07-22 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  I don't really understand the connection. I could continue with the atrocities during the Russian revolution of 1917 (the October one, not the February one), the "cleansing" during Stalin's reign, the various and numerous crimes against humanity in the Gulags and other camps that are not far from what we remember from Nazi concentration camps... of course, but it would be kind off topic in this discussion, wouldn't it?
  This here was about the results of WW1 and how it affected history in the 20th century. And yes, without WW1, without the aid of the Germans and without the Russian army no longer being the backbone of the Czarist rule (actually, if I'm not mistaken, one of the main backbones of the Bolsheviks was the navy, but I have to admit I'm not that firm in Russian history), nothing of the communist crap that went down over Russia between 1917 and 1990 would have happened. History sure would have taken a different turn without WW1. WW2 would not have occurred. Or at the very least it would have looked vastly different. It's interesting to ponder the development of Europe without WW1. Imagine Franz Ferdinand didn't get shot in 1914 and would have inherited the empire of Austria-Hungary in 1916 when Franz Joseph II dies.
  In total, though, I'm almost certain war was inevitable. When you look at the nations before WW1, they were armed to the brim, everyone hated everyone, everyone wanted to bite out a piece of everyone else and everyone was just waiting for a reason to attack.
  Germany had a militarist tradition and was a very militarist country. Today we remember that as some sort of Nazi thing, but they only reaped that militarist tradition. It was sown during the latter half of the 19th century, and being in the military was some way to climb the social ladder. Even if you didn't make it into the officers ranks, you were a soldier, you were someone. You were not, well, you existed. Even getting a good civilian job was tied to the question "did you serve?" Additionally, Germany was late to the colonial race and they sure wanted their part of the cake. If necessary, by force.
  France was still pissed after losing the war of 1870/71. The coronation of emperor Willhelm of German in Versailles in Paris sure didn't help here either. They wanted revenge.
  England was wary of the German arms build-up in their naval department, their doctrine relied (with good cause) on having the strongest navy of all countries, and they saw it as some kind of insurance for their "splendid isolation" on their island, considering that nobody can land on it who doesn't have the naval superiority. A Germany that builds dreadnoughts was certainly not something Britain could easily stomach.
  Austria-Hungary was maybe the only large country that had better problems to deal with than a war, it's only ironic that they are essentially what started the whole crap. The Austrian-Hungarian multi-ethnic state was about to crumble (as it aptly did after WW1). Essentially, everyone wanted out. Franz Ferdinand (heir to the throne and the person who was shot in Sarajevo, which started the whole mess) had plans to create some kind of "United States of Austria". One can only speculate how long this would have held together, but it might have saved the Empire. Essentially, their reason to join the war was, aside of the obvious that they were the ones feeling attacked, that an external enemy might make internal bickering disappear. And it actually worked for 4 years, only to end up in a violent explosion.
  And of course Russia. Russia, I think, didn't want that war. Russia was quite happy on its edge of Europe and didn't really have everything in place to go to war yet. They needed a few more years, which makes for an interesting question whether the war would have run differently had Russia gotten a decade more to finish their railroad network and build up more industry. They were only beginning the industrialization that took place a century earlier in England, but they gained track quickly. The general situation of Russia, especially the Russian peasants, was devastating. But I think if they knew what's in store for them, they would have preferred being serfs rather than starving to death.
  One can only speculate.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
23. Re: A few more by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-22 02:56 · Score: 0
  
  Note that neither World Wars were religious conflicts. Just pointing that out because it's commonly believed here that religions have caused more deaths than non-secular conflicts. War is war. Doesn't matter what started it, it's not good for anything.
24. Re: A few more by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-22 03:26 · Score: 0
  
  How do you get rid of a philosophy grad?
  Pay for the pizza
25. Re: A few more by Nimey · 2013-07-22 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  Consider the pursuit of Goeben and Breslau: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pursuit_of_Goeben_and_Breslau
  
  General Ludendorff stated in his memoirs that he believed the entry of the Turks into the war allowed the outnumbered Central powers to fight on for two years longer than they would have been able on their own. The war was extended to the Middle East with main fronts of Gallipoli, the Sinai and Palestine, Mesopotamia, and in Caucasus. The course of the war in the Balkans was also influenced by the entry of the Ottoman Empire on the side of the Central Powers. Had the war ended in 1916, that would have meant that some of the bloodiest engagements, such as the Battle of the Somme, would have been avoided. The United States might not have been drawn from its policy of isolation to intervene in a foreign war.
  In allying with the Central Powers, the Turks also shared their fate in ultimate defeat. This gave the victorious allies the opportunity to carve up the collapsed Ottoman Empire to suit their political whims. Many new nations were created including Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Iraq, and the idea of a Jewish state in Israel was considered for the first time.
  Also, the closure of Russias only ice-free trade route through the Dardanelles effectively strangled the Russian economy. Unable to export grain nor import munitions, the Russian army was isolated from her allies and slowly began to collapse. Combined with the German decision to release Vladimir Lenin in 1917, the sealing off of the Black Sea was one of the critical contributors to the "revolutionary situation" in Russia which would explode into the October Revolution.
  
  --
  Hail Eris, full of mischief...
  
  E pluribus sanguinem
26. Re: A few more by Hentes · 2013-07-22 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  A few years later, the Spanish flu killed ten times that much. These casualties weren't particularly big at the time, and compared to the military casualties and the scale of the conflict, WW1 was one of the more chivalric wars.
27. Re: A few more by redlemming · 2013-07-22 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  Germany had a militarist tradition and was a very militarist country.
  This is a somewhat misleading statement. When considering WWI, it's worth remembering that many of the earlier histories were written by the "winners". Some of these contained substantial amounts of propaganda, or highly prejudicial descriptions and interpretations of events, and others were based on rather sloppy research. The myths propagated by these earlier "histories" continue to persist in the face of more recent scholarship.
  What we think of today as "Germany" was actually formed from a number of different smaller states (27?), only united in the mid to late 19th Century. These smaller states had very different cultures and even significant language differences, and this was reflected in the attitude towards warfare of their people. There were many times in WWI where German units -- usually those from particular backgrounds -- did very little to pursue the war, even going so far as to adopt an unofficial but very real truce with their Allied counterparts across the lines, essentially a live and let live approach, or "you don't bother us, we won't bother you".
  The units from Alsace-Lorraine were especially notorious for having little enthusiasm for the war, not surprising considering how many of these people had both French and German relatives, but were certainly not the only group in this situation.
  The Prussians had a reputation for militarism, but were only one of the German states. You may be thinking of them. Even there, things are far more complex than most people suppose.
  John Mosier notes in his book "The Myth of the Great War" that in 1900 Germany had a little over a half million people in uniform, while France and Russia had nearly two million. The French appropriated far more money to their military, and had a far larger percentage of their population involved in mandatory military training (about 85%) whereas less than half of the eligible Germans had military training and the numbers were even smaller in Austrian (Hapsburg) lands. These numbers changed by 1914, but even then the Russian and the French armies together significantly outnumbered the supposedly "ultra-militaristic" Germans.
  As far as the causes of WWI go, the situation is far more complex than most people realize. Some of the older histories, still influential, seem to neglect German-language written sources (perhaps the authors couldn't be bothered to learn German?), which show that there were considerable differences in opinion concerning the desirability of war. Kaiser Wilhelm, for example, did not want a war.
  Mosier notes "As in France, the [German] military didn't determine foreign policy, it simply tried to win whatever war the government had forced it to fight. In this, both General Staffs were alike." (pp 50)
we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-21 10:46 · Score: 1

"Archaeologists"...!?
I am Greek living in Greece and i feel insulted - and i am sure some very old people who were born during WW1 and are still alive are feeling the same as me.
1. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-21 11:12 · Score: -1
  
  Holy fuck slashdot has gotten stupid.
2. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by PurpleAlien · 2013-07-21 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  archaeology
  /ärkälj/
  Noun
  The study of human history and prehistory through the excavation of sites and the analysis of artifacts.
  
  WWI definitely qualifies as history...
  
  --
  My blog, if you're interested: http://www.purp
3. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by AK+Marc · 2013-07-21 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  My grandfather fought in WWI and was born in 1899, and died 1985. Were he alive, what possible reason would exist for him to feel insulted?
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
4. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-21 11:30 · Score: 0
  
  "WWI definitely qualifies as history..."
  It does qualifies as history but not as ancient history...
  As i wrote i am a Greek: as many words in English, "archeology" is a compound word from the Greek "arhaio" and "logia" - "arhaio" means ancient.
5. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by smittyoneeach · 2013-07-21 11:31 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I am Greek living in Greece and i feel insulted
  As well you should, but not for this particular reason.
  
  --
  Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
6. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by PurpleAlien · 2013-07-21 11:36 · Score: 2
  
  There are tons of words derived from Greek that don't have the literal meaning of the original Greek word anymore. Archaeology is one of them...
  
  --
  My blog, if you're interested: http://www.purp
7. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-21 11:38 · Score: 0
  
  My grandfather fought in WWI and was born in 1899, and died 1985. Were he alive, what possible reason would exist for him to feel insulted?
  I suspect he would not be very amused if he know that "archaeology" is a compound word from the Greek "arhaio" and "logia" with "arhaio" meaning ancient - o.k., i am just a Greek that maybe is too much sensitive but please don't be angry with me... here in Greece we don't consider something as a subject of archeology if it's not a couple of milleniums old!
8. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-21 11:46 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, you may be right - but exacly for that reason ("There are tons of words derived from Greek") maybe it would be better if the English language was i little more carefull with the meanings (many Greek words are used as synthetics in many English words, many times with very different meaning that leads English speakink people -and Greeks!- to confusion).
9. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by _merlin · 2013-07-21 11:54 · Score: 2
  
  So should English people get offended at the way Japanese hijacks words like "idol" and "panic", or the way that "VIP" effectively means "sexual services" in Vietnamese? Modern Greek has changed a lot from classical Greek, so you're arse-raping your own language anyway.
10. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by Deadstick · 2013-07-21 12:04 · Score: 1
  
  And tons of English words not used in the standard context. Like "tons".
11. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-21 12:06 · Score: 0
  
  Modern Greek has changed a lot from classical Greek, so you're arse-raping your own language anyway.
  I am one of the least educated Greeks (i left school when i was 14 - more than 97% of Greeks finish school at 18) and i can still read Homer and the rest of our ancient Greek texts (or the New Testament - writen originally in Greek) from the original.
  
  So should English people get offended at the way Japanese hijacks words like "idol" and "panic", or the way that "VIP" effectively means "sexual services" in Vietnamese?
  Well, Greeks should... "idol" and "panic" are Greek words!
12. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by _merlin · 2013-07-21 12:14 · Score: 2
  
  I am one of the least educated Greeks (i left school when i was 14 - more than 97% of Greeks finish school at 18) and i can still read Homer and the rest of our ancient Greek texts (or the New Testament - writen originally in Greek) from the original.
  I can read New Testament Greek, and it definitely isn't the same as either classical Greek or modern Greek. The language has changed. At the rate it's going, soon 50% of the language will be some variant of the word malakas, just like English is degenerating into stuff like, "Fuck you you fucking fuck!"
13. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by fnj · 2013-07-21 12:38 · Score: 1
  
  "WWI definitely qualifies as history..."
  It does qualifies as history but not as ancient history...
  As i wrote i am a Greek: as many words in English, "archeology" is a compound word from the Greek "arhaio" and "logia" - "arhaio" means ancient.
  Absolutely agree that archaeology is rather an odd way to characterize study of artifacts of the WW1 period. Unfortunately I don't think English has a convenient word or phrase to describe study of artifacts of modern history. Does Greek?
14. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by MightyMartian · 2013-07-21 12:50 · Score: 2
  
  The meaning of words evolves. Good grief what an idiotic argument. And do you think all the words in modern Greek are identical in meaning to their Koine, Classical and pre-Classical roots? Oh my goodness, we have to stop the presses, it turns out words have changed in meaning since Proto-Indo-european and we must do something about it!
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
15. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by MightyMartian · 2013-07-21 12:52 · Score: 2
  
  Fortunately a know a few Greeks who are anal to the point of stupidity.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
16. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by number11 · 2013-07-21 13:03 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Yes, you may be right - but exacly for that reason ("There are tons of words derived from Greek") maybe it would be better if the English language was i little more carefull with the meanings (many Greek words are used as synthetics in many English words, many times with very different meaning that leads English speakink people -and Greeks!- to confusion).
  "English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary." - James Nichol
  Under those conditions, it would be unwise to expect too much precision as words move into English. Not to speak of the fact that over time, some English words change meanings. And the young whippersnappers think everything that happened before they were born is "ancient".
  Besides, the original article was written by Germans.
17. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-21 13:11 · Score: 0
  
  I disagree that modern Greek is so much different from ancient Greek (for the New Testament period Greek -koine- it needs a couple of hours reading to get the few differences - for Homer Greek it needs more effort) but i agree that sadly modern Greek is mostly the words "malaka", "pousti", "gamisou"...
18. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-21 13:29 · Score: 0
  
  No, not all modern Greek words are identical in meaning to their Koine, Classical and pre-Classical roots but most (almost all!) are. Anyway, i agree that the meaning of words evolves (at least for English - it's not so "mature" as Greek), it's just a little strange for a Greek (but even for some native English speaking persons?) to read about WW1 "archeology"...
19. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-21 13:38 · Score: 0
  
  I hope that you are a native English speaker so you will confirm my belief that even you can "feel" that the word "archeology" is not so suitable for WW1 study of artifacts - but not even Greek (!) has an apropriate word (we use a phrace like yours -study of artifacts of modern history- but we don't use "archeology" since "archeo" -ancient- would make it ridiculus for a so recent period like WW1).
20. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by AK+Marc · 2013-07-21 13:45 · Score: 1
  
  You are like the Spanish speakers who insist that "American" in English is not unambiguously something or someone from the USA. The English word "archeology" "is the study of human activity in the past," according to Wikipedia, and that's consistent with other sources (just taken because it was the first hit). That the English word doesn't exactly match the meaning of the constituent words makes it like most other constructed words. Even if it doesn't match how someone with knowledge of the original language would think of it.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
21. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by MichaelSmith · 2013-07-21 13:52 · Score: 1
  
  we?
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
22. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-21 13:52 · Score: 0
  
  "English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary." - James Nichol
  Very interesting!
  And i think you understand my objections with the "unsuccesfull" use sometimes (most of the times is very succesfull and impress me as a Greek) of some Greeks words from the English language. I am very proud for Greek being used so much in English (and other languages), i just expect more, because the same Greek root word ("archeo" - ancient) may be used again in English, it may be used corectly (!), and then it will be confusing for English speaking people.
  And yes... you also understand my -failed- attempt to joke about those people who think WW1 stuff are "ancient" - if you want ancient stuff come to Greece!!!
23. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-21 14:08 · Score: 0
  
  The English word "archeology" "is the study of human activity in the past," according to Wikipedia, and that's consistent with other sources (just taken because it was the first hit). That the English word doesn't exactly match the meaning of the constituent words makes it like most other constructed words. Even if it doesn't match how someone with knowledge of the original language would think of it.
  "The first stage of wisdom is the examination of the words" - Antisthenes (Greek ancient -"archeos"!- philosopher).
  
  You are like the Spanish speakers who insist that "American" in English is not unambiguously something or someone from the USA.
  Well... "American" is... something or someone from... America...
24. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-21 14:16 · Score: 0
  
  we?
  Yes, "we"!
  Usual jokes in Greek military (all males serve as conscripts) is to answer the usual questions about military seniority (plays an important role between soldiers) like this: i am so ancient -"archeos"- that i fight with swords - well, i am more ancient than you that i fight with rocks... e.t.c...
25. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by Arker · 2013-07-21 15:23 · Score: 2
  
  "You are like the Spanish speakers who insist that "American" in English is not unambiguously something or someone from the USA."
  Except that he isnt right.
  Archaeology does indeed mean study of ancient things, which is about as accurate as a one-word designation could be here, but that should not be taken to imply that there is some minimum age before the techniques, the craft, of the archaeologist may be applied. The connotation of extreme age informs but does not necessarily constrain the denotative value.
  On the other hand america in both English and Spanish refers to the whole binary continent system, north and south, which includes by standard count 35 independent American States at present. The idiosyncratic usage inside the US is to some degree understandable, but the sheer dumbassitude of those that actually do as you just did in elevating street slang, and not just any street slang, but a particular phrase apparently chosen for its sheer jingoist ugliness, as if it were proper English is what blows me away. It's like you heard about 'the ugly american' but somehow got the idea this was an example to be followed with passion and commitment, rather than a cautionary tale about pitfalls to avoid.
  
  --
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
26. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-21 15:35 · Score: 0
  
  Language is changing constantly. Nigger used to be the latin word for black. Then it became a pejorative term for blacks. Now it once again a term of respect. "You have to love all the true niggers out there." Now the pejorative term is white. No one wants to be that creepy white guy. Everyone want's 2 b a 'true nigger from the hood.'
  - I really hate humanity, and wish all you faggots would get off my planet. That way I could keep my language pure, and use words to mean what they ares supposed to mean instead of all these made up meanings that you faggots give them.
  e.g.
  Hot means good. Cool means good. Bad means good. America means the USA. Seriously you are a bunch of faggots( which is no longer a perjorative term for homosexual, nor does it mean a bundle of sticks. It is referring to you)
  Now leave already and stop changing the meaning of all my words.
27. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by AK+Marc · 2013-07-21 15:52 · Score: 2
  
  Archaeology does indeed mean study of ancient things,
  
  Wrong on both accounts.
  Archeology "is the study of human activity in the past," (Wikipedia's definition, others agree, Wikipedia picked solely because it was the first hit on "archeology definition").
  
  On the other hand america in both English and Spanish refers to the whole binary continent system,
  No, it does not. "The Americas" is the English word you are looking for. You can't even capitalize proper names properly, makes it hard to believe your definitions of them.
  
  You assert I'm wrong, but give nothing but your incorrect opinion to support your incorrect opinion. I've given one cite for support of mine, and I've given many other cites for "an American" unambiguously being a person from the USA.
  
  I don't live in the USA, and if I call myself "a person from the USA" in Australia, I'm corrected to "an American" by the locals, so it's not just American English that dictates the usage.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
28. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by _Shad0w_ · 2013-07-21 16:30 · Score: 1
  
  It's not confusing in the least, we just learn what the individual words mean. When people are aware of the etymology they just file it away as a quirky etymological factoid.
  And there you go, another Greek rooted word, by way of French and Latin: etymology.
  
  --
  Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
29. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by _Shad0w_ · 2013-07-21 16:33 · Score: 1
  
  A field archaeologist might find them self working on a Viking dig one project and a WW1 project the next. Are they supposed to change job title simply because the period they're working on has changed?
  
  --
  Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
30. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by Arker · 2013-07-21 16:44 · Score: 1
  
  Oh come on. Wikipedia's definition is a rather mercurial thing, without a timestamp that quote isnt even a reference, and the dominance of Murcans (you'll notice I am capitalising this for you consistently since you seem to care) on Wikipedia has been noticed many times before.
  Even the completely Murcan-centric Merriam-Webster's even gives as it's #1 definition "A landmass in the western hemisphere that consists of the continents of North and South America joined by the Isthmus of Panama." The same unimpeachable source still relegates the Murcan usage to a subsidiary entry.
  So there we go, cite vs cite, I clearly have you on that one.
  My condolences on your location. I lived for a few years in 'stra'ia ms'eff mate. And your location makes your opinion make slightly more sense. In so many ways Au and US have been tied at the hips for many decades now. The ugly Murcan and the 'stra'ian bogan are sibling trailer parks and they have been cross-fertilising for awhile. Australians hate having to deal with Indian call-centers even worse than Murcans do!
  You dont need a cite just use your head. There's North America and South America and at minimum there are 35 American States and the adjective American, by the rules of English is the proper adjective form to refer to any of those. Including Murcans, yes that's true, but not somehow allowing us to turn around and exclude everyone else. The fact that we dont have a good word for ourselves that others werent using already before we even got started is actually pretty extraordinary, can you think of any other group that claims to be a nation, even including ones that currently dont have any independence, that you can say the same about?
  (There are several different systems of capitalisation and I normally am not pedantic about it. Language can be choked by too much order. However just to humor you I have deliberately used them everywhere I expect you expect them in this post. Except for the 'apostrophes' of course, you'll have to imagine those somehow capitalised when appropriate. )
  
  --
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
31. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by mysidia · 2013-07-21 17:08 · Score: 1
  
  A field archaeologist might find them self working on a Viking dig one project and a WW1 project the next. Are they supposed to change job title simply because the period they're working on has changed?
  Then their job has expanded such that "archeology" is no longer an adequate description. They are field excavators.... or perhaps we could say Artifactologists
  Or Forensic History Investigators
32. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by Opportunist · 2013-07-21 17:26 · Score: 1
  
  For the US, it does. If you only have 200 years of history, a century sure is a long, long time. :)
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
33. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by Opportunist · 2013-07-21 17:28 · Score: 1
  
  Dude, I'm not 85, not even 58, but there are mornings when I sure as hell feel qualified to be considered "ancient".
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
34. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by Opportunist · 2013-07-21 17:29 · Score: 1
  
  Rocks? ROCKS? You whippersnappers, we would have KILLED to have rocks! But who am I talking to, you even have sharpened sticks today!
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
35. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-21 18:21 · Score: 0
  
  It's not confusing in the least, we just learn what the individual words mean. When people are aware of the etymology they just file it away as a quirky etymological factoid.
  I am afraid that you are right about what most English speaking people do with the etymology of the words but as Antisthenes (a Greek ancient -"archeos"!- philosopher) said: "The first stage of wisdom is the examination of the words" - without wanting to insult the English language... Greek is a much more "mature" and "logical" (in the way words are constructed) language that helps people be... wiser!
  * o.k. i know... we Greeks, in the middle of our economic crisis, can't claim such things right now!!!
36. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by gl4ss · 2013-07-21 18:32 · Score: 1
  
  "Archaeologists"...!?
  I am Greek living in Greece and i feel insulted - and i am sure some very old people who were born during WW1 and are still alive are feeling the same as me.
  you're greek. isn't your whole bit feeling insulted, no matter if the subject of the matter is something as simple as your team losing in womens football league match... who the fuck do you think should have digged them up, doctors ?? it's just a job title.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
37. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-21 18:33 · Score: 0
  
  A field archaeologist might find them self working on a Viking dig one project and a WW1 project the next. Are they supposed to change job title simply because the period they're working on has changed?
  Yes... maybe they should - and when in the distant future WW1 will be ancient ("archea" in Greek) history they could be archeologists again working in WW1 projects. I just try to make clear that ancient ("archea") time periods should mean... ancient.
38. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by sFurbo · 2013-07-21 18:40 · Score: 2
  
  English does have a convenient word to describe "the study of human activity in the past, primarily through the recovery and analysis of the material culture and environmental data that they have left behind", including recent past. That word is archaeology.
39. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-21 18:52 · Score: 0
  
  "The first stage of wisdom is the examination of the words" - Antisthenes (Greek ancient -"archeos"!- philosopher).
  You already unterstand the above...
  I believe that Greek is more "logical" (in the way words are constructed) language, and because is more "mature" helps people understand the world better, but you just proved with this "Artifactologists" (good!) that English may be also capable if used properly.
40. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by AK+Marc · 2013-07-21 19:01 · Score: 1
  
  Oh come on. Wikipedia's definition is a rather mercurial thing, without a timestamp that quote isnt even a reference,
  But you provided no counter quote, and why not assume the timestamp of the post as a timestamp? Oh yeah, because you are an argumentative jackass.
  
  Even the completely Murcan-centric Merriam-Webster's even gives as it's #1 definition "A landmass in the western hemisphere that consists of the continents of North and South America joined by the Isthmus of Panama." The same unimpeachable source still relegates the Murcan usage to a subsidiary entry.
  Yes, Websters does clearly delineate "the Americas" as I stated
  
  or the Americas the lands of the western hemisphere including North, Central, & S. America & the W. Indies
  
  But the first entry does not read as you assert. In fact, yours reads as the OED entry. You are a lying sack of shit, who lies to prove a point. I'm not argueing with you. I've proved everything you've said to be wrong or a lie. I'm just informing anyone who might believe your lies that they are lies.
  
  http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/American?q=american Try reading that one and letting us know what it says. It's the very non-American centric OED. Does that work for you? Looks like you've already quoted it for something else, but lied about the source.
  
  There are several different systems of capitalisation and I normally am not pedantic about it.
  How many systems of capitalization are there in English, and can you name any where proper nouns are lowercase? If not, I'll chalk that up to another lie. I've not heard of there being such divisiveness in capitalization.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
41. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-21 20:37 · Score: 0
  
  And yes... you also understand my -failed- attempt to joke about those people who think WW1 stuff are "ancient" - if you want ancient stuff come to Greece!!!
  ...and for really ancient stuff, go to Turkey or Middle East. Can't go wrong with British isles or western/central Europe either if you're looking for paleolithic or mesolithic remains. :)
42. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by chilvence · 2013-07-21 23:42 · Score: 2
  
  Well, Greeks should... "idol" and "panic" are Greek words!
  Nice. :).
  To address your point, you might be out of luck. Smart people in historical times would use latin or greek words where none existed in their own language, but these people were also trained in latin or greek. Modern English students are all vaguely aware of the roots of those words, but don't have the context of the actual source language, unless they specialise. Unless Greek makes a comeback, its probably just going to get slowly, nauseatingly worse from your perspective, which I can only apologise for. I mean to me,archaeology basically is what Indiana Jones and Dr Daniel Jackson does...
  Ok, that's an exaggeration, but you get my point.
  Sorry :/
43. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by jeremyp · 2013-07-21 23:58 · Score: 2
  
  Unfortunately I don't think English has a convenient word or phrase to describe study of artifacts of modern history.
  Yes it does, the word is "archaeology".
  You can argue that the literal translation from the Greek doesn't fit, but in English, it's often the case that a word changes its meaning over time. It's quite normal and not a problem at all as long as everybody understands what everybody else means when they say the word.
  
  --
  All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
44. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by jeremyp · 2013-07-22 00:05 · Score: 1
  
  Why do you feel insulted? Archaeologists frequently dig relatively modern sites. There's no reason to get insulted about it.
  
  --
  All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
45. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-22 01:29 · Score: 0
  
  Shut the fuck up, you stupid wop.
46. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-22 01:37 · Score: 0
  
  Or grave robbers
47. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-22 06:09 · Score: 0
  
  I have yet to meet anyone from the multitude of countries I've lived/worked in who calls people from the United States anything but "Americans". It's common usage, and doesn't dictate that the United States represents all of North or South America.
  Stop being silly.
48. Re:we didn't had submarines in ancient Greece by samwichse · 2013-07-22 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  What other country on either the North or South American continent contains the word "America?"
  "The Americas" -> continents
  "America" -> the USA
  When it's the only country that has "America" in the name, it seems pretty unambiguous to me. If I'm not aware of a country's full title, please enlighten.
  Sam
Yes their story must be told! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-21 11:02 · Score: 0

They enlisted, they fought, they sank, they died.
And I did it without any funding too!
Only 15m down? by Animats · 2013-07-21 11:34 · Score: 2

Wow. Only 15m down, off the east coast of England, and nobody noticed before? I'm surprised someone fishing didn't notice.
1. Re:Only 15m down? by zippthorne · 2013-07-21 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  Someone fishing probably did notice. They'd be providing habitats that are attractive to fish, after all. They probably just didn't tell anyone so they could keep the best fishing spots for themselves.
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
2. Re:Only 15m down? by dbc · 2013-07-21 12:08 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  That probably says a lot about how pleasant sport diving is off the North East coast of England. Let's see...... Grand Cayman, or the North Sea.... think think....
3. Re:Only 15m down? by geniice · 2013-07-21 12:22 · Score: 1
  
  Eh word of such things usualy leaks out pretty fast. Thing is there are so many sites in of the british coast. Mostly things that fell overboard.
4. Re:Only 15m down? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-21 15:22 · Score: 0
  
  Speaking of leaks, surely all of the mercury used as ballast would have been showing up in the fish stock in the region and been another good marker indication.
5. Re:Only 15m down? by Deadstick · 2013-07-21 15:41 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Submarines are ballasted with seawater. The leaking mercury you read about was cargo, being carried to Japan by one German submarine (U-864) for use in explosives manufacture.
6. Re:Only 15m down? by Opportunist · 2013-07-21 17:30 · Score: 1
  
  Notice? Sure. Care? Why?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
7. Re:Only 15m down? by neil_rickards · 2013-07-22 01:01 · Score: 1
  
  Actually the diving around Britain can be excellent, particularly Cornwall and Scotland. I'm off to the Orkney Islands next week to dive the remains of the WW1 German fleet which was interred then scuttled in Scapa Flow.
  I love tropical diving, but Plymouth is rather easier to get to for a weekend, and the UK has a lot of world-class wrecks. That said, the visibility in the South-East tends to be pretty poor
8. Re:Only 15m down? by afidel · 2013-07-22 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  Have some scotch from the Scapa distillery while you're in the area, it's my favorite =)
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
9. Re:Only 15m down? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-22 03:53 · Score: 0
  
  Ballasted with mercury?
  Can you talk me through how you would plan to get the mercury back in when you want to go down again?
10. Re:Only 15m down? by Nimey · 2013-07-22 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  Did they re-open that again?
  If not, get some Highland Park from nearby. It's an excellent "summer" scotch.
  
  --
  Hail Eris, full of mischief...
  
  E pluribus sanguinem
11. Re:Only 15m down? by afidel · 2013-07-22 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, Pernod which owns HP bought it and reopened it, the guys from HP travel down the road to run it a couple days a month.
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
a treasure trove indeed. by nimbius · 2013-07-21 11:39 · Score: 2

im sure they could correlate a wealth of information by looking at german communications station logs from these vessels to determine the exact time and date of their demise

"day 15, we remain undetected off the enemy coastline. I dont know how the allies have patrolled so long and hard without fiWF##$(_NO CARRIER"

--
Good people go to bed earlier.
1. Re:a treasure trove indeed. by plopez · 2013-07-22 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  I think they were scuttled after the Brits took them as war prizes.
  
  --
  putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
2. Re:a treasure trove indeed. by RockDoctor · 2013-07-22 23:10 · Score: 1
  
  You're probably thinking of the German Imperial Fleet, which was seized, interned at Scapa Flow, and scuttled by the sailors to prevent them from being used by the British Navy. They remain one of the country's (if not world's) best diving sites. Poor visibility and cold water notwithstanding.
  Though I do admit to wondering how such a concentration of vessels came to be. It does sound like a deliberate scuttling.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
3. Re:a treasure trove indeed. by RockDoctor · 2013-07-22 23:20 · Score: 1
  
  More likely : "Submarine U-47 did not call in today with it's weather report. It is assumed lost."
  "Submarine U-48 did not call in today with it's weather report. It is assumed lost."
  "Submarine U-49 did not call in today with it's weather report. It is assumed lost."
  "Submarine U-50 did not call in today with it's weather report. It is assumed lost."
  (Weather reports, because of their predictability, were one of the keys that the Bletchley Park code-breakers used to get the day's settings for Enigma one war later.)
  Communications at the time were very, very limited, to reduce the chance of onshore radio direction finding locating a sub.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Some WW1 submarine warfare related links by cold+fjord · 2013-07-21 11:47 · Score: 4, Informative

The First Battle of the Atlantic
British submarines in World War One
His German Imperial Majesty's U-Boats in WWI
WWI German submarine has underwater Lake Michigan grave
German WWI Submarines (Pictures)
U-boat Attack, 1916
Anti-Submarine Measures from World War I
Depth Charges

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
"Sunken Wii U boats..." by Andrio · 2013-07-21 11:47 · Score: 0

That's what I read.

--
The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
1. Re:"Sunken Wii U boats..." by Waffle+Iron · 2013-07-21 12:54 · Score: 2
  
  That might be plausible, if the Wii U really is as big of a flop as some reports indicate.
  Since Atari's New Mexico landfill no longer accepts electronic waste, scuttling at sea may be the next best option.
Wii U Boats by rbpOne · 2013-07-21 11:57 · Score: 1

What the heck is a Wii U Boat?
1. Re:Wii U Boats by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-21 12:08 · Score: 0
  
  You plug it in the bottom of your controller when you are playing in the bathtub ?
2. Re:Wii U Boats by Seumas · 2013-07-21 21:54 · Score: 1
  
  Glad I'm not the only one who misread it that way. :)
"Race against time" by AK+Marc · 2013-07-21 12:01 · Score: 4, Interesting

I love how they call it a "race against time". 100 hundred years underwater, and it's in bad shape, but some small amount of extra time, and all will be lost.

--
Learn to love Alaska
1. Re:"Race against time" by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-21 12:26 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Things don't decay linearly. They visibly look okay for a long time, and then suddenly fall to pieces as the underlying structure finally gives up.
  Iron ships sunk not very deep, especially.
2. Re:"Race against time" by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-21 13:18 · Score: 0
  
  I wonder if it's some sort of historical salvage rule with it being exactly 100 years. I don't know if there is such a thing. If so then the race is against other people who have the same idea of being able to profit off of something that has just become pure salvage property rather than something with no sovereign claims.
3. Re:"Race against time" by alannon · 2013-07-22 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  You didn't read the article very carefully. In not very long (100 years after the wrecks), the sites become UNESCO heritage sites and it will become very, very difficult to study them. That is why it's a 'race against time'.
4. Re:"Race against time" by AK+Marc · 2013-07-22 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  No I didn't read carefully enough. Seems they were avoiding direct wording. "If we don't commercially exploit these in the next few years, they'll belong to everyone, and communism is bad" wasn't directly stated. There was an implication that it was from the state of the find, and I was even corrected by someone above that it was the state of the find, so it must not have been that clear that it was a race to beat maritime law and exploit them before they become protected.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
5. Re:"Race against time" by RockDoctor · 2013-07-22 23:25 · Score: 1
  
  There was an implication that it was from the state of the find, and I was even corrected by someone above that it was the state of the find, so it must not have been that clear that it was a race to beat maritime law and exploit them before they become protected.
  Since it is very likely that at least some of these vessels are war graves, then "exploiting" them is likely to carry jail time as a penalty already.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Up to 50 feet? by walterbyrd · 2013-07-21 12:06 · Score: 1

Seems like something that shallow would have been found a long time ago.
1. Re:Up to 50 feet? by Deadstick · 2013-07-21 12:13 · Score: 1
  
  The Hunley lay at half that depth for 130 years.
2. Re:Up to 50 feet? by thereitis · 2013-07-22 00:10 · Score: 1
  
  Kind of scary how shallow they could go. With a sub height of about 21 feet, that's about 15 feet of water above and below which doesn't leave a lot of margin for error.
Ownership by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-21 12:45 · Score: 0

Citing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Swan_Project
Per Court precedence in the USA, as the U boats were sunk in a time of war, and non-natural causes, the submarines belong to their respective countries. Any archaeology performed, shall require that country's permission, and give the entire wreck findings, scientific findings, and any possible media derived profits to the country of derivation.
whether it be 0.5 billion in gold and silver or chunks of wood, ships sunk in a time of war are treated differently in international waters.
1. Re:Ownership by z0idberg · 2013-07-21 14:15 · Score: 1
  
  "All of the sunken U-boats are relatively close to the coast, at depths of no more than 15 meters (about 50 feet)"
  Doesn't sound like international waters to me.
2. Re:Ownership by RockDoctor · 2013-07-22 23:39 · Score: 1
  
  Doesn't sound like international waters to me.
  The criterion is distance from the shoreline (whether it's MAT, Mean Astronomical Tides or LAT, Lowest Astronomical Tides I'm not sure ; in most places it only makes a few metres difference), not water depth.
  In this case, being on the "East coast of England" would mean that the agreed median lines between states would come into effect. I've worked on at least three, probably more, oil fields that straddle the median lines, and where the geological and petrophysical data I collect determines the way that production is assigned between countries, and hence who gets what tax. the question is thoroughly settled.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
War graves? by fnj · 2013-07-21 12:49 · Score: 1

Sites of sunken WW2 U-boats (and other warships of all nations) are treated as war graves with a prohibition against entering or disturbing. Why would WW1 sites be treated any differently?
How old would such wrecks have to be before skeletons would be treated as just skeletons? Most likely nobody would have any scruples nosing around wrecks of Norse longboats of 1,000 years ago, or if that is not the case, how about Greek ships from BCE?
1. Re:War graves? by mysidia · 2013-07-21 17:21 · Score: 2
  
  Aircraft automatically get that status. Sea ships or U-Boats have to be designated under the protection of military remains act
  Still... this act doesn't exclude archaeology; it just means that special restrictions and permitting requirements apply.
Delicious grant money. by couchslug · 2013-07-21 12:58 · Score: 1

It bears reminding that wreck diving costs money, and is fun.
Make a historically entertaining case for sponsorship then have at it.
Wrecks are somehow more interesting to the public than the same or similar vessels preserved on land.

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
"We owe it to these people to tell their story." by couchslug · 2013-07-21 13:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

Surviving submarine commanders, and Admiral Doenitz who commanded them, wrote memoirs.
There are plenty of first-hand accounts of submarine warfare from participants. They are in dead-tree media but still available.
Also very interesting are accounts of commerce raiders and Q-ships in both wars.

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
There were invasions and murdered citizens ... by perpenso · 2013-07-21 14:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

World War I had nothing to do with countries being invaded and citizens being murdered.
The Kaiser's invaded France and Belgium and the atrocities committed against civilians are well documented. So for many French and Belgium volunteers the war was precisely about invasion and murder. You are not considering that the people who declare wars and the people who fight wars are entirely two different sets of people with entirely different motivations. Perhaps some of the Kaiser's troops were thinking about murdered princes and national honor but French troops were fighting on **French** soil, they had a very different set of motivations.
Archaeologists seem the best qualified ... by perpenso · 2013-07-21 14:41 · Score: 3, Interesting

"Archaeologists"...!? I am Greek living in Greece and i feel insulted - and i am sure some very old people who were born during WW1 and are still alive are feeling the same as me.
Perhaps a person trained to dig through ancients ruins and reconstruct history is also the best qualified person to dig through modern ruins and reconstruct history. Perhaps archeological techniques and best practices developed over the centuries at ancient historical sites can be applied to modern historical sites as well. Are archaeologists somehow unfit to work at a modern historical site merely because that is not their traditional use?
Its about specific boats and specific crews ... by perpenso · 2013-07-21 14:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

Surviving submarine commanders, and Admiral Doenitz who commanded them, wrote memoirs. There are plenty of first-hand accounts of submarine warfare from participants. They are in dead-tree media but still available. Also very interesting are accounts of commerce raiders and Q-ships in both wars.
Its not U-boat history in general that is being referred to. It is the specific history of these boats, the specific story of these crewman. I once visited the submariner's memorial at Pearl Harbor. It lists the U.S. submarines that fought in the Pacific during WW2. A bunch of submarines were lost. Some of these were marked as "sunk", some of these were marked as "overdue, presumed lost". To many people there is something unfinished, something sadder, about "overdue, presumed lost". Moving a ship and crew from the "overdue, presumed lost" list to the "sunk" list, giving a location, is meaningful. Especially to family members.
1. Re:Its about specific boats and specific crews ... by DerekLyons · 2013-07-21 16:10 · Score: 1
  
  A bunch of submarines were lost. Some of these were marked as "sunk", some of these were marked as "overdue, presumed lost". To many people there is something unfinished, something sadder, about "overdue, presumed lost".
  FWIW, to the Brothers of the 'Phin, they're all the same - they're all our brothers on Enternal Patrol.
  
  Moving a ship and crew from the "overdue, presumed lost" list to the "sunk" list, giving a location, is meaningful. Especially to family members.
  That's why so many have been found in recent years - the gear has gotten (relatively) cheap and the children of those men are retiring, and have the money and the time to go find them.
2. Re:Its about specific boats and specific crews ... by couchslug · 2013-07-22 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  Keeping it real, warships are MUCH sexier than the merchant ships they sank and the entertainment value of submarine crews actions (most of the family members who actually KNEW them are either elderly or dead by now) is greater than that of the crew of some forgotten oiler or collier or cargo ship they sent down with all hands.
  http://www.usmm.org/shipsunkdamaged.html
  http://www.worldnavalships.com/merchant_navy_losses.htm
  http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/history/other/sea/secondfleet
  
  --
  "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
3. Re:Its about specific boats and specific crews ... by perpenso · 2013-07-22 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  The positions of the merchant ships sunk were generally known, at least after the war. Family and friends could learn of the "burial site". For those sites sufficiently close to a coast it was not unheard of for someone to go out there in a boat and lay a wreath or some flowers on the water. Or have the wreath/flowers air dropped on the site.
  
  The families of those listed as "overdue, presumed lost" did not have this minor comfort. Given the extreme close proximity to shore of these newly discovered subs there will probably be grandchildren and grand-nephews/nieces born decades after the family member was lost paying their respects. Its not just for those who knew the lost sailor.
I knew they wouldn't float ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-21 16:32 · Score: 0

Sunken WiiU boats? If you ask me the whole thing sunk.
Not on but in by dutchwhizzman · 2013-07-21 17:19 · Score: 1

You don't get on the tubes, you get *in* them. Everybody knows the internet is made out of tubes!

--
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
1. Re:Not on but in by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-21 18:14 · Score: 0
  
  Fair point.
UK protected Wreck Sites, not only WW1 subs. by auric_dude · 2013-07-21 17:54 · Score: 1

Sites identified as being likely to contain the remains of a vessel or its contents which are of historical, artistic or archaeological importance can be designated under Section 1 of the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/discover/maritime/ http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/caring/listing/protected-wreck-sites/ with a Map of The Designated Sites in UK http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/discover/maritime/map/. English Hereitage are having a push on pre 1840 wrecks http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/about/news/pre-1840-shipwrecks/
Too shallow for container ships by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-21 21:10 · Score: 0

I find it weird that naval battles occurred in water too shallow for today's newest, and largest container ships...
Re:"We owe it to these people to tell their story. by complete+loony · 2013-07-21 21:48 · Score: 1

That's just Archaeologists speaking. They don't believe anything unless they dug it out of the ground themselves.

--
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
Is that a U-Boat? by WhirledOne · 2013-07-21 23:54 · Score: 1

Is that a U-boat?
No, that's not-a my boat.