Germany swapped optics and binoculars for rubber in ww1...with Britain

Thought i would just post this here, it's interesting and just goes to show how pointless and futile war really is. Young men dying so fat old men can serve their own ego and finances.

(18-20 July) The British army is running short of binoculars.

“Disastrously short,” according to historian Adam Hochschild. And not just binoculars.

“Aerial reconnaissance camera lenses, periscopes, rangefinders, and telescopic sights for sniper rifles.”

“All were essential,” reports Hochschild, “particularly the last; when the lives of his men on the battlefield could depend on locating an enemy sniper or machine-gunner, every officer or NCO needed a reliable pair of binoculars hanging from his neck.”

The British optical industry is incapable of meeting the need. The demand is especially strong as the British are planning new offensives on the stalemated Western Front.

So in an entirely unexpected and unorthodox pan, the British turn “to the world’s leading manufacturer of precision optics: Germany.”

Germany didn't have a ready supply of rubber at home due to British blockades and they were happy to make the deal. Just another case of history that isn't taught in many history books in school. You would think after 100 years we would have learned. Pity we haven't.

war, what is it good for? absolutely nothing

a reply to: sg1642
And Coca Cola sold "Fresca" to the Germans too, the Bush family got Rich working with the Nazi's.


War is good for those who Profit from it, we should have a War on those people, Non-Profit.

And Australia were trying to sell scrap metal to Japan in WW2
Go read about pig iron Bob

Politicians,Moho would believe it if it wasn't true

a reply to: sg1642

Not saying this is or isn't true but the linked article provides no sources and suggests that there are no actual records. So what evidence is there that this happened?

a reply to: sg1642

Yes, war is bad, we get it.
The problem most utopian daydreamers like to ignore is that wars are caused usually by one nation threatening others, wanting to expand, wanting to invade... at what point do you hang up your naive hat and defend yourself?

Everyone agrees that war is a terrible thing, and yes of course people will capitalize on conflict, that doesn't change the reality that when you are faced with a threatening force you have a duty to your people to defend them from that force.

Let's not try to rewrite history for nothing more than a utopian fantasy, the Germans started both WWW1 and WW2.

Assassinations aside, deals and treaties aside, decelerations of war aside (these things can all be ignored without it leading to physical conflict between nations) WW1 started when GERMANY invaded BELGIUM on August 4th 1914.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: sg1642

Not saying this is or isn't true but the linked article provides no sources and suggests that there are no actual records. So what evidence is there that this happened?

there is an official record of this in the history of the ministry of munitions vol. XI but it costs roughly £20 for a copy. In any case it's not the only case of collusion between wartime foes.

a reply to: sg1642

Fair enough, however (and this is a criticism of the article not your op) it is generally good form to give sources or references in history pieces.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: sg1642

Fair enough, however (and this is a criticism of the article not your op) it is generally good form to give sources or references in history pieces.

Yeah you have a good point. I couldn't find a free copy anywhere to link here. You can usually find that sort of thing hidden away online in some obscure pdf file but its not to be found.

originally posted by: Rocker2013
a reply to: sg1642

Yes, war is bad, we get it.
The problem most utopian daydreamers like to ignore is that wars are caused usually by one nation threatening others, wanting to expand, wanting to invade... at what point do you hang up your naive hat and defend yourself?

Everyone agrees that war is a terrible thing, and yes of course people will capitalize on conflict, that doesn't change the reality that when you are faced with a threatening force you have a duty to your people to defend them from that force.

Let's not try to rewrite history for nothing more than a utopian fantasy, the Germans started both WWW1 and WW2.

Assassinations aside, deals and treaties aside, decelerations of war aside (these things can all be ignored without it leading to physical conflict between nations) WW1 started when GERMANY invaded BELGIUM on August 4th 1914.

I somewhat agree but my point remains. War is a decision made by the few for the many to carry out. Politicians monarchs etc make the decisions that lead to conflict, and the people are often swayed to support them through propaganda etc. I'm no utopian daydreamer I'm actually a veteran myself. There is no disputing the fact wars happen because of human nature and they will continue to do so, but it's that human nature that allows us to be lead so blindly as a mass by those in power. The fact war exists is bad enough, but the fact there are people who use it as a tool for their own gain is even worse. You said let's not rewrite history and you are right, but let's not leave out the bits that don't suit the official narrative. The war profiteers who have ties to, and even control over, politics and the decision makers are one of the ugly hidden truths of war.

"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

Major General Smedley D. Butler. USMC and Medal of Honor recipient.

a reply to: sg1642

You'd think that there'd be something somewhere, wouldn't you?

It doesn't surprise me any, really. People profit from very strange things, in very strange ways.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: sg1642

You'd think that there'd be something somewhere, wouldn't you?

It doesn't surprise me any, really. People profit from very strange things, in very strange ways.

I've been looking not found anything. The thing is this can be explained as a necessity of war etc but you can tell there would be some industrialists grinning and rubbing their hands together. Good for business i suppose.

originally posted by: sg1642
I somewhat agree but my point remains. War is a decision made by the few for the many to carry out. Politicians monarchs etc make the decisions that lead to conflict, and the people are often swayed to support them through propaganda etc.

I agree with you, but the notion that there is some concerted effort for leaders to take their nations into a war is the obvious flaw here.

One nation starts a war, the nation they are warring against then has to either surrender or defend itself.

Churchill didn't really need to use a whole lot of propaganda to defend the British Isles against the Nazis, because the Nazis were in fact invading nation after nation, this wasn't some concerted effort by the British to go into a war. The circumstances for war were created not by the British, but by Nazi Germany.

originally posted by: sg1642
I'm no utopian daydreamer I'm actually a veteran myself. There is no disputing the fact wars happen because of human nature and they will continue to do so, but it's that human nature that allows us to be lead so blindly as a mass by those in power.

Again, it seems you're attempting to suggest that both participants in any conflict are driven to war by their own government, when that's simply not the case.

Look at WW1 and WW2, Germany invaded other nations. Those nations didn't attempt to invade Germany. Therefore one is an aggressor, and the only solution in the face of aggression like that is defence.

Churchill didn't need to nefariously take Britain into a war, he didn't need to lie to the public to somehow convince them that war was a good thing, Britain and the rest of Europe was directly threatened by an invading force.

One is attack, the other is defence, a defence against an invading nation does not need to be nefariously manufactured because the threat is absolutely there.

originally posted by: sg1642
The fact war exists is bad enough, but the fact there are people who use it as a tool for their own gain is even worse. You said let's not rewrite history and you are right, but let's not leave out the bits that don't suit the official narrative. The war profiteers who have ties to, and even control over, politics and the decision makers are one of the ugly hidden truths of war.

Oh I don't aim to leave out the hypocrisies of war and the fact that people capitalize on it, in fact I made that clear in my post. I entirely agree that there are those who profit from warfare and those who take advantage of a situation like that to make some money.

That is not the same thing as claiming that nations being attacked and defending themselves are somehow guilty of something.

I don't think we're going to agree on this, because you do seem to have a very simplistic notion of war. I'm a pacifist by nature, I loathe war, but I'm not naive enough to throw the baby out with the bathwater and claim that even nations defending themselves from invasion and attack are somehow guilty of something.

Yes, by all means debate the methods of war and the justification for the use of certain weapons and means (the firebombing of Japan and Germany, the use of Nuclear weapons over Japan, the suggestion that a leader might sacrifice one city to save another...) but there is absolutely no sensible argument in the notion that even those nations defending themselves against an aggressor are "just as bad".

All war is bad, but if Germany was rushing through Europe today, bombing my country and threatening to take control under a fascist regime, you can bet your behind I would be signing up to defend my country against that threat in any way I could.

a reply to: sg1642

Politically WWI was a little weird.

It was almost as though it was fought because they thought they should, more than because they wanted to. If that makes any sense...

So back-channel business would be, in my eyes, not all that surprising, really. Strange to our eyes now, not so much then, after all it was a much, much smaller world back then, and all the big boys/girls knew each other, they all went to the same schools, or summer resorts, and of course, many were related either by blood, or by marriage, or both.

...and those boys dying in the trenches were less than nothing to most of 'em. Let's not forget that, either.

originally posted by: seagull
Politically WWI was a little weird.

It was almost as though it was fought because they thought they should, more than because they wanted to. If that makes any sense...

I think WW1 seems a little strange because it was the first industrial scale war between nations, nothing like that had ever been seen before, the power of industrialized warfare was unleashed and no one had experienced it on such a scale before.

Ultimately though, the only ones who had any place being there were those defending against the invasion of the Fascists. Once again we're back to the reality that one was an invading force, the other was a defensive force attempting to stop them.

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: sg1642
I somewhat agree but my point remains. War is a decision made by the few for the many to carry out. Politicians monarchs etc make the decisions that lead to conflict, and the people are often swayed to support them through propaganda etc.

I agree with you, but the notion that there is some concerted effort for leaders to take their nations into a war is the obvious flaw here.

One nation starts a war, the nation they are warring against then has to either surrender or defend itself.

Churchill didn't really need to use a whole lot of propaganda to defend the British Isles against the Nazis, because the Nazis were in fact invading nation after nation, this wasn't some concerted effort by the British to go into a war. The circumstances for war were created not by the British, but by Nazi Germany.

originally posted by: sg1642
I'm no utopian daydreamer I'm actually a veteran myself. There is no disputing the fact wars happen because of human nature and they will continue to do so, but it's that human nature that allows us to be lead so blindly as a mass by those in power.

Again, it seems you're attempting to suggest that both participants in any conflict are driven to war by their own government, when that's simply not the case.

Look at WW1 and WW2, Germany invaded other nations. Those nations didn't attempt to invade Germany. Therefore one is an aggressor, and the only solution in the face of aggression like that is defence.

Churchill didn't need to nefariously take Britain into a war, he didn't need to lie to the public to somehow convince them that war was a good thing, Britain and the rest of Europe was directly threatened by an invading force.

One is attack, the other is defence, a defence against an invading nation does not need to be nefariously manufactured because the threat is absolutely there.

originally posted by: sg1642
The fact war exists is bad enough, but the fact there are people who use it as a tool for their own gain is even worse. You said let's not rewrite history and you are right, but let's not leave out the bits that don't suit the official narrative. The war profiteers who have ties to, and even control over, politics and the decision makers are one of the ugly hidden truths of war.

Oh I don't aim to leave out the hypocrisies of war and the fact that people capitalize on it, in fact I made that clear in my post. I entirely agree that there are those who profit from warfare and those who take advantage of a situation like that to make some money.

That is not the same thing as claiming that nations being attacked and defending themselves are somehow guilty of something.

I don't think we're going to agree on this, because you do seem to have a very simplistic notion of war. I'm a pacifist by nature, I loathe war, but I'm not naive enough to throw the baby out with the bathwater and claim that even nations defending themselves from invasion and attack are somehow guilty of something.

Yes, by all means debate the methods of war and the justification for the use of certain weapons and means (the firebombing of Japan and Germany, the use of Nuclear weapons over Japan, the suggestion that a leader might sacrifice one city to save another...) but there is absolutely no sensible argument in the notion that even those nations defending themselves against an aggressor are "just as bad".

All war is bad, but if Germany was rushing through Europe today, bombing my country and threatening to take control under a fascist regime, you can bet your behind I would be signing up to defend my country against that threat in any way I could.

It is funny you should say that because i agree totally with what you are saying. I'm not of the opinion that there was some effort to drag the world into war what i mean is there were certainly those who saw the potential benefits and reaped the rewards. They grew rich while boys died in the mud and dirt. When you say Germany was the aggressor you are right but (and i struggle to put this to words correctly so bare with me) that wasn't just a light bulb that suddenly pinged in every German head. First there had to be the desire to invade, that wouldn't just pop into the heads of everyone it had to be put there. Does that make sense? At some point a small group made that decision and then from there the rest are swayed (the people) or ordered (the military). Be it national pride or a perceived threat there is normally something that will be used to gather support. But at the head of it all way up at the top, there is usually a small group or individual who sit back and make decisions that ultimately have no effect on them in comparison to those below them.

Basically what i mean is of course there is an aggressor and a defender, and of course you will defend your country or people. I dont think anyone would say different. You wouldn't sit around and make daisy chains wishing it would all go away you would act. But it is usually the will of a select few that is then transferred into the will of a nation or people that leads a country into an act of aggression. Invariably, it is the poor or common people who suffer the consequences. It also boils down to the decision makers own ego and pride leading the people down that path too.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: sg1642

Politically WWI was a little weird.

It was almost as though it was fought because they thought they should, more than because they wanted to. If that makes any sense...

So back-channel business would be, in my eyes, not all that surprising, really. Strange to our eyes now, not so much then, after all it was a much, much smaller world back then, and all the big boys/girls knew each other, they all went to the same schools, or summer resorts, and of course, many were related either by blood, or by marriage, or both.

...and those boys dying in the trenches were less than nothing to most of 'em. Let's not forget that, either.

one of the great tragedies of the great war in my opinion would have to be the pals battalions. Brothers, neighbours, friends all from the same town and street dying side by side because of a recruitment idea that never touched on the consequences before it was implimented and it wasn't thought through properly.

When looking at the history leading to WW1 the "principle of incitement" is often overlooked.

The name " Basil Zaharoff " is well worth entering into the search engine of your choice.

He was known as "The Merchant of Death" and it seems he earned the name.