• World War I: Girl stowed away on troopship to join the fight.
    28 replies, posted
[QUOTE][QUOTE][IMG]http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/5634626-3x4-340x453.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]A teenage girl from the Hunter Valley coalfields was so desperate to be a part of Australia's war effort that she cut her hair, dressed as a soldier and stowed away on a troopship. The exploits of Maud Butler, a resourceful 16-year-old waitress with a sense of adventure, are being researched by historian Professor Victoria Haskins. Maud was only 16 years old when she first tried to get to the front - and if it had not been for her boots she might have made it. The girl from Kurri Kurri, in rural New South Wales, climbed on board a troopship waiting at the Woolloomooloo docks in Sydney at night, disguised as a soldier, and was discovered two days later out at sea. "[B]I had a terrible desire to help in some way, but I was only a girl... I decided to do something for myself. - Maud Butler[/B], December 1915 in the Farmer and Settler" Source: [url]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-04/world-war-i-teenage-girl-stowed-away-on-troopship/5687202[/url][/QUOTE] One of those awesome war stories from the archives.
I love stories about badass ladies who joined the military despite them being men-only back in the day. Even if they get found out, they had the guts to not only get in the military knowing they might die, but to get past the people who would tell her she can't fight.
so its sorta like mulan then. nothin wrong with a women fighting for her country
It sucks that she didn't make it, even if it would have meant the possibility of death. She wanted to fight for the greater good, but the option was taken away when she was so close to achieving it. All because of her damn boots too. :v:
Kinda shows how fucked up our priorities and morals were back then that kids who were [i]16[/i] and younger wanted to and were basically encouraged by propaganda to go and fight a war. "The lost generation" is the term I think? Such pointless war too, I could certainly understand it in a fight for your country's survival/independence though.
[QUOTE=BurningPlayd0h;45887324]Kinda shows how fucked up our priorities and morals were back then that kids who were [i]16[/i] and younger wanted to and were basically encouraged by propaganda to go and fight a war. "The lost generation" is the term I think? Such pointless war too, I could certainly understand it in a fight for your country's survival/independence though.[/QUOTE] You gotta remember the British had to make sure they had the support from the general public in the commonwealth countries, this is what Australians saw on the streets when they were going about their day back then [t]http://www.firstworldwar.com/posters/australia/slides/p_0005.jpg[/t][img]http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/ww1/homefront/images/recrui1.jpg[/img][img]http://hsc.csu.edu.au/modern_history/core_study/ww1/posters/kanga.gif[/img][img]http://hsc.csu.edu.au/modern_history/core_study/ww1/posters/jbull.gif[/img][img]http://www.migrationheritage.nsw.gov.au/cms/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/ID096-AWM-Must-it-come-to-this.jpg[/img] Some outrageous scare tactics from today's standards
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;45887350] Some outrageous scare tactics from today's standards[/QUOTE] They used a lot of the same tactics we see today. That baby killing story that got the US into defending Kuwait is pretty similar to those stories of baby killing in Belgium that got young men to enlist in 1915.
Nonsense, Bob's a boy!
[QUOTE=Marceline;45887474]Nonsense, Bob's a boy![/QUOTE] *enter Hugh Laurie dressed in drag*
[QUOTE=BurningPlayd0h;45887324]Such pointless war too, I could certainly understand it in a fight for your country's survival/independence though.[/QUOTE] I feel it's very wrong to call WWI pointless like many do. Yes, nothing was gained for it, and yes, we had to fight the same war all over again twenty years later; but it wasn't ever a war for gain. It was a war to stop someone else making gains, at which it succeeded greatly.
[QUOTE=Riller;45887887]I feel it's very wrong to call WWI pointless like many do. Yes, nothing was gained for it, and yes, we had to fight the same war all over again twenty years later; but it wasn't ever a war for gain. It was a war to stop someone else making gains, at which it succeeded greatly.[/QUOTE] It was also a showcase and testing ground for just how deviously, willfully violent we can get.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;45887904]It was also a showcase and testing ground for just how deviously, willfully violent we can get.[/QUOTE] War always is, sweetcheeks. We've just gotten better at it than we were before the great war.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;45887849]*enter Hugh Laurie dressed in drag*[/QUOTE] Woof woof
[QUOTE=BurningPlayd0h;45887324]Kinda shows how fucked up our priorities and morals were back then that kids who were [I]16[/I] and younger wanted to and were basically encouraged by propaganda to go and fight a war. "The lost generation" is the term I think? Such pointless war too, I could certainly understand it in a fight for your country's survival/independence though.[/QUOTE] Keep in mind that brits in general were volunteers. The lost generation probably applies more to the Austrian empire, Germany and France than the UK and it's members. Also pointless war is relative. It's the war that changed the geography of Europe and the middle east more than any other war. In a lot of ways, it's the war that has had a bigger impact on US than WW2. In a sense - ww1 create space for a new culture, or allowed a powdered keg of culture to explode. WW2 in contrast was associated with a huge decline of culture. It's also the point, were american culture expanded and European dipped for a while. A large amount of writers were jewish. Communism then added in a deathknell wherein culture was imposed and built alongside a heavy handed schematic. Remember another fairly significant thing - compared to ww2, there was no real big bad evil guy in ww1. Austria was dragged in by terrorists, France, Germany and the UK by alliances.
It was very brave of her, i really admire that. Altho i can't help but laugh at all those Australian city/town names, how do you even pronounce that Wolooolo-thing?
But the public did not know, the politics of the time does not discredit the fact that the UK had an entire generation wiped out. There is no more / less worthy of the title lost generation. Each of the nations involved sent young and naieve men to die in a hell hole under the pretense that what they was doing was the right thing.
[QUOTE=Viper123_SWE;45888520]It was very brave of her, i really admire that. Altho i can't help but laugh at all those Australian city/town names, how do you even pronounce that Wolooolo-thing?[/QUOTE] they're aboriginal names, they're pronounced exactly the way they're written.
[QUOTE=Riller;45887887]I feel it's very wrong to call WWI pointless like many do. Yes, nothing was gained for it, and yes, we had to fight the same war all over again twenty years later; but it wasn't ever a war for gain. It was a war to stop someone else making gains, at which it succeeded greatly.[/QUOTE] Who do you mean? Austria?
[QUOTE=Kljunas;45889674]Who do you mean? Austria?[/QUOTE] The central powers (Austria-Hungary and Germany) and Ottoman empire. You know, the aggressors who sought to gain from it but lost the war.
[QUOTE=Riller;45887887]I feel it's very wrong to call WWI pointless like many do. Yes, nothing was gained for it, and yes, we had to fight the same war all over again twenty years later; but it wasn't ever a war for gain. It was a war to stop someone else making gains, at which it succeeded greatly.[/QUOTE] But we didnt fight the same fucking war in the second! One of the US's opponents was the same, which really means very little. The circumstances were [i]completely[/i] different. The "aggressors" in the first world war... right.
[QUOTE=Riller;45890093]The central powers (Austria-Hungary and Germany) and Ottoman empire. You know, the aggressors who sought to gain from it but lost the war.[/QUOTE] I have a hard time discerning whether this is a joke or not.
[QUOTE=Riller;45890093]The central powers (Austria-Hungary and Germany) and Ottoman empire. You know, the aggressors who sought to gain from it but lost the war.[/QUOTE] You mean Germany which wanted Austria to not go into the war at first but felt obliged to enter in part because they did offer unconditional suppport? Or the Ottoman empire which had long standing disputes with Imperial England? Or even Austro-Hungary which was merely trying to hold territories it nominally did control at first. Remember that the central powers had long term issues with both Sea faring powers and in part merely attempted to level the playing field. The first world war was a mess and nations were drawn in because of existing alliances more than anything else. Funny that ww2 happened in part because nations did not uphold alliances. Basically you had Serbia>Russia>France>Germany>UK If I remember the timeline right.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;45886949][QUOTE]Woolloomooloo docks[/QUOTE][/QUOTE] Not to desensitize this story, but holy shit I laughed harder than I should have at that. Goddamn Australia.
[QUOTE=Riller;45890093]The central powers (Austria-Hungary and Germany) and Ottoman empire. You know, the aggressors who sought to gain from it but lost the war.[/QUOTE] The Ottoman Empire was declining. Germany had done nothing afaik since they took Alsace-Lorraine forty years prior. Austria was trying to extend its influence in the Balkans but it's not like they were a threat to the world like Hitler would be in 1939. France on the other hand sought gains, because they wanted their revenge against the German Empire and take Alsace-Lorraine back. There were no good guys or bad guys in WW1.
[QUOTE=Kljunas;45890792] There were no good guys or bad guys in WW1.[/QUOTE] The good guys were the working class and anti-war people.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;45893487]The good guys were the working class and anti-war people.[/QUOTE] shut up
[QUOTE=Kljunas;45890792]The Ottoman Empire was declining. Germany had done nothing afaik since they took Alsace-Lorraine forty years prior. Austria was trying to extend its influence in the Balkans but it's not like they were a threat to the world like Hitler would be in 1939. France on the other hand sought gains, because they wanted their revenge against the German Empire and take Alsace-Lorraine back. There were no good guys or bad guys in WW1.[/QUOTE] well no one likes a backstabber like Italy :v:
[QUOTE=wraithcat;45890672]You mean Germany which wanted Austria to not go into the war at first but felt obliged to enter in part because they did offer unconditional suppport? Or the Ottoman empire which had long standing disputes with Imperial England? Or even Austro-Hungary which was merely trying to hold territories it nominally did control at first.[/QUOTE] I think that he means Germany which invaded neutral countries simply for tactical reasons ("necessity knows no law" and all that nonsense), the Ottoman Empire which committed 3-4 separate genocides during that period, or Austria-Hungary, which invaded another country over a single person, fully knowing that Russia would intervene. Austria-Hungary specifically avoided any non-violent alternatives in fully defusing or at least to some extent de-escalating , the crisis. In fact, the ultimatum they sent was clearly designed to be rejected. Germany openly blocked any proposals from the British for a summit where a peaceful solution could be perhaps negotiated. The Ottomans... are really just indefensible. The idea that the Central Powers were somehow forced into this war is absolutely absurd. If you don't wanna have a war (which you'll probably lose), then de-escalate the crisis, don't escalate it. You have diplomatic talks, you have peace summits, hell, you can have backroom deals. You talk. Sending ultimatums, invading neutral countries, even invading Serbia, are not de-escalatory measures. They are absolutely certain ways to escalate the situation. They knew that war against Serbia would mean war against Russia (and technically Greece, since they had a defensive pact with Serbia, but they didn't get involved till 1917). And they knew that war against Belgium would mean war against the United Kingdom. They did it anyway.
[QUOTE=Starlight 456;45886973]I love stories about badass ladies who joined the military despite them being men-only back in the day. Even if they get found out, they had the guts to not only get in the military knowing they might die, but to get past the people who would tell her she can't fight.[/QUOTE] For me, my first experience of that was watching Mulan. She went off to fight the Huns since she knew her father could not, truly inspirational movie even if Mushu was a little wacky.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.