Translate

Monday, December 15, 2014

OBC - The War to End All Wars - World War 1


122 comments:

  1. I picked this book because I wanted to learn about world war one and what happen with all the countries and how it effected the people

    ReplyDelete
  2. I picked this book because I would like to learn more about the World War 1 and how bad it was and who were the heroes and who were the Vilians. I have heard a lot of war stories from my dad and my grandma so I would like to hear more of them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I chose this book because I like learning about WWI (world war 1) and I also like learning about the people and the battles of WWI.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I picked this book because I wanted to learn more about WW1 and what had happened. Like how bad the war actually was.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The reason i picked this book is because i like military,wars,and history and love the World Wars.I would like to learn a little bit more than i know about it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I picked this story because i wanted to know why they thought it would end all of the wars. I want to know why thought it would end all of the wars

    ReplyDelete
  7. I chose this book because I like to learn about wars, and I don't know a lot about WW1 so I wanted to learn about how it started and what happened. I also wanted to know why they thought it would end all wars, it obviously didn't because WW2 is a thing..

    ReplyDelete
  8. I wanted to leran more about ww1 because I know some but not alot about it.I real want to know about trenches and how they were made and used alot.

    ReplyDelete
  9. My confusion in the book was that how does the bullet get through a car door and almost kill a person, it was a revolver too. Wouldn't you think that a metal car door would stop a revolver bullet.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Konnor it would not stop the bullet but it would slow it down.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But didn't it say that he shot through the window??

      Delete
    2. ^Yeah it did..
      and yeah, you'd think the window would slow it down, but it still wouldn't stop it.

      Delete
    3. Ok the bullet would slow down but at the same time it would do the same damge because glass is not thik

      Delete
    4. it doesn't matter what it shot through it matters what kind of revolver it was and what grain it was that is how u determine the damage

      Delete
  11. I thought that they shot it through the window of the car. That's why they go shot in the part of the mouth and the neck.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It was confusing about how two little countries can start a chain reaction and superpowers emerge and arent realy fighting for the real cause and it all started by an assasination.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Countries allies; in other words if a country declares war on another country, the first countries allies would also declare war on the same country as the first one. The country who got war declared ons allies would declare war on the same one who declared war first and its allies.

      Delete
    2. Tensions where already high and then an important person got killed which eventually set off the chain reaction.

      Delete
  13. It depends on the revolver bullet and how thick the metal car door was.

    ReplyDelete
  14. My confusion in the book was how come the didn't add the other two guys (his accomplices) when he did the shooting. Like when he shot Franz and then the other two guys were just wrote in the book on the second page??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe they ran away and denied that they weren't even a part of the shooting. Maybe the 2 accompliaces were the ones who turned the guy who shot Franz in.

      Delete
    2. Gavrilo's (The guy who shot Ferdinand) accomplices ended up getting captured and then they eventually confessed they helped kill Ferdinand and where armed in Serbia.

      Delete
  15. I'm confused why Sir John French disliked the British and Germans exchanging gifts at Christmas in a place of unhappy thoughts. (pages 48-49)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sir John French didn't like them exchanging gifts because the British were at war with Germany and Sir John French wants the British to shoot the Germans not exchange presents with them.

      Delete
  16. I'm kind of confused/shocked on how just a few gunshots could start a huge war. Like it wasn't a bomb drop or anything, everyone just started getting ready for war and getting into things because of a few gunshots..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. there were tensions between the countries previously, and the gunshots were the breaking point.(the straw that broke the camel's back.) lets say that someone insults you. After a few minutes, you might throw a punch. That last insult represents the gunshots, and the punch represents a country declaring war on the country who started it.

      Delete
    2. it wasn't just a couple of bullets they killed a man of power that's what started the war and when one countries starts war the allies of that country need to help

      Delete
  17. I was confused on why the border guards let the terrorists in because the guards probably knew they where going to kill Ferdinand.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But what if they didn't know that they were actually going to kill him?

      Delete
  18. I know that he got shot but I did not no she got shot so I was very suprised.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It said that the bullet went through the car door and into Ferdinand and into her side.

      Delete
  19. you have to find the grain of the bullet and the revolver it's self if its a powerful revolver and it has the right grain it could very well go through a car just like that

    ReplyDelete
  20. My confusion is when the soldiers march how do their feet match up exactly? What are the odds of a shell hitting a hospital?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First, the person in charge, (general, sargent, etc.) will yell when to put there left and right foot down. Second, if you can get the exact coordinates, you can blow up an ant.

      Delete
    2. They could march exactly the same because they train and they half to march the same.

      Delete
  21. My confusion about the book was how could two of the countries start that big of a chain reaction

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because different countries are allies, like if your friend is getting made fun of, you'll join in and tell them to stop, y'know?

      Delete
    2. because they did not like each othor so they sarted a war afraied they would get over run they asked for help from bigger countries and that is how.

      Delete
    3. For all we know someone could have said something or even threatened to do something to someone.

      Delete
  22. Week of January 5th - Each group member needs to comment with a discussion question or idea for the group. Then reply to each other's questions. You will need to reply to at least 3 group members, but feel free to reply to more.

    ReplyDelete
  23. How where Serbia and Russia allies in the war? What does everyone else think about how they might be allies?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The book said that they were allies because they both spoke a certain language (the same language).

      Delete
    2. The both spoke the slavc language and Serbia looked up to them for support.

      Delete
    3. Serbia was and allie with Russia because they both spoke a certain language and they both had each others backs.

      Delete
    4. They were probably just trying to get as many allies as possible. They spoke the same language so it really worked out, they could communicate and such.

      Delete
  24. In chapter 5, British commander Sir John French was upset because German and British soldiers exchanged gifts. Do you think his reaction was appropiate? Why or why not?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yes,because they are fighting them and dont want to see that person that they know.and not shoot them and risk everything that some people died for.

      Delete
    2. No, I do not think it was appropriate because usually if you give someone a gift that is kind of a sign of caring, so if they both care for each other than they could maybe team up.

      Delete
    3. The reaction that guy had was bad they just needed a break and for a day they could be nice to each other it was Christmas and all the other holidays so why would it be bad that they had fun for a bit sorry commander that was over kill

      Delete
    4. It depends. I wouldn't be so happy if my soldiers were receiving gifts from the enemy, but it might have been a sign the Russia wanted to just stop fighting. And, it was Christmas!! People give gifts on Christmas, and the fact that Russie spent their money to give someone they're FIGHTING a gift, is kind of nice, to be honest..

      Delete
    5. I think that he should not have like mabey get a littel made but still nothing went wrong and maby they wanted a aliance?

      Delete
    6. No, because it was a happy time of year and they just wanted to relax a bit and try to forget the war and they may not have wanted to fight.

      Delete
    7. No,because it was a happy time of year and they just wanted to relax a bit and try to forget the war and they may not have wanted to fight each other so they decided to exchange gifts.

      Delete
  25. In chapter 4 why did germany what to attack belguim.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because Belgium was easier to go through to attack France and thought they wouldnt put up a fight.Also it was neutral and wouldnt let them go through

      Delete
    2. They wanted attack Belgium because it would be much easier to go through Belgium to get to France. Belgium wasn't involved in anything so they thought that it would be like taking candy from a baby.

      Delete
    3. Belgium was weak compared to Germany. (if a strong person attacks a weak person who wins?) (the strong, and it would probaly be an easy win. wouldn't you take an easy win?)

      Delete
    4. Germany attacked Belgium because they thought it would hurt the French and they could get an easy win on the French.

      Delete
    5. They went through Belgium to go to France and they declared a war...

      Delete
  26. On page 23, If you look at the picture above there are a couple people who almost look like kids, like 14 year olds on the front lines! Do you think this is appropriate to have young teenagers on the frontlines?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. no there should not be teens on the frontlines they would live such a short life

      Delete
    2. It isn't appropriate, but in both World Wars, people as young as 12 could serve in some form of military, and also 5 or 6 year olds fought in the resistance.( if I remember correctly)

      Delete
    3. They registered to be in... So if they were young and they registered that it like they wanna help and serve for our country... Yes they would have a short life but they wanna help people..

      Delete
    4. i don't think it's appropriate, but at the same time, there parents probably made them, and everyone was convinced that if you didn't join you were a bad person, and weren't able to protect your own country, no matter your age.

      Delete
    5. They probably just look really young maybe early 20's and i don't think they would put a 14 year old in a war and even if they did, it wouldn't be in the front lines.

      Delete
    6. I think if they chose to go to war that is ok but they should not be on the front line they should be more in the back and that I think that is not ok for them to be on the front line.

      Delete
    7. Yes because you are going to need all the help you can get and they could someday see their future in military and there are drafts and volunteers who were excited about the war and becoming soldiers

      Delete
    8. yes, parker is right kids could sign up for war and they would be put into the war to help with thing that they were told.

      Delete
  27. I thought it was crazy that the assassination of Archduke Franz caused a war. If he was never killed, would WWI ever be a thing? After the war started, countries fought other countries because of other reasons. Would those reasons still matter if Archduke was never shot, was one reason of war just an excuse to bring out your hatred for other countries?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well see we will never know because the archduke was killed if he wasent mabey the wouldent start but still I think that because they started the atack but then needed help that then all theis thing keep getting biger till it was a world war then ever one fought for diffrent reason.

      Delete
    2. World War 1 may still have happened sense tensions where still high and they may have declared war on Serbia.I think those reasons wouldn't matter if Franz got shot because they may have been mad at those countries any way so it was just an excuse.

      Delete
    3. it Probable still would happen just not in the same way because no matter what the Germans wanted more power and land so it would still happen just a different reason

      Delete
    4. Yes because there are always going to be tension between countries and when one snaps others others follow and take sides

      Delete
  28. On page 93 do you think it is wrong to send men into nomans land and have half of them die

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. no, because back then it was a good military strategy to overwhelm the soldiers and yes they did die but it was for a good military gain.

      Delete
    2. Yes it's bad that half of them died but they were fighting for their country and they do have a right to fight for their country...

      Delete
  29. Why was it so good to shoot down another persons plane. I know it's war put why not do it on the battlefield instead of being in the air then falling into an explosion and then dying...

    ReplyDelete
  30. In chapter 6 did you think it was ok to use poison gas against each other, and what about the use of planes, do you think it was ok to use planes during that time or was it to soon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that it was okay to use poison gas against each other because one reason is it was a war and it was the most feared weapon to use against other countries in war..

      Delete
    2. If they were going to use planes then why use both weapons against other countries when you are already using the poison gas or the planes...

      Delete
  31. One thing that I am confused about is why when people couldn't sleep at all because they would leave dead people out in front? Why would they want dead people out on the grass or dirt?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If they would have grabbed the dead from no man's land, they would most likely become dead to.(get hit by a bullet) Depending how far out in no man's land the body was the more likely they'd get hit to. If the soldier was even 2 feet out of the trench, the chance of the person surviving long enough to pull him in would be 0.0001%. So that is why they left the dead in no man's land unless they died in the trench.(if they died in the trench, they buried them in the trench somewhere).

      Delete
  32. Round Two. Comment about something that shocked or surprised you in the second half of the book. Write it in a way that will allow others to discuss this idea/event with you. Reply to at least 3 other comments (if possible). All must be done by Jan 23rd. There will be no lates with this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I was surprised the when the Germans signed a peace treaty for 20 years they killed some of the British soldiers and some of the Allies soldiers before the treaty was activated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ya I know its like if your going to make a treaty why kill some of the allies and british soldiers.

      Delete
    2. if you were in a prison camp or something like that of cores they would kill you if you have seen unbroken then you would know so go see the movie or read the book

      Delete
    3. Yeah, I wondered that as well but maybe the British soldiers were just to much for the Germans.

      Delete
    4. It was legal, because technically the treaty activated at a certain time, now if they shot even 30 seconds after the treaty was activated, they could be charged with a war crime.

      Delete
  34. I coudent belive that thier were people that had thier faces belown off,legs.arms,faces,and much more including getting shot in the stomic and in othor places I just couldent belive they lost so much blood and were alive for almost 2 days with out medics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know its like how can you live that long with missing limbs and bolts stuck in you.

      Delete
    2. That is what happened in the war.. I know that it is shocking but if that didn't happen then why would it be call war? Yes it is shocking in 2 days but they were strong people in the war that is why they went in the war...

      Delete
    3. Well mud sometimes stops the bleeding for some time and that it might not have hit a major arteries and survive for awhile

      Delete
    4. like Parker said you really don't need much unless you were like dropping arteries as long as you have something blocking the blood you should be fine for a while.

      Delete
    5. Yah I know, but if you were in a war wouldn't you want to try everything to stay alive, kinda like Parker said they put mud on their wounds.

      Delete
  35. I can't believe that the people got injured didn't get help the others just ignored them and did help them it was actually quite sad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Its because they did not care about them I would care about them and not just leave them to lay there and die. I mean it that were you there you would want someone to help you.

      Delete
    2. Well it was during war and that even more would be injured and could have cost them the war without the soldiers

      Delete
    3. They had to go on in the war if they wanted to win.. If someone fell it wasn't a big deal and they would have to go on and try to win that war..

      Delete
    4. I agree but, I mean it's war If there was nothing I could do I would just run and not worry about the wounded men, granted it is very sad.

      Delete
    5. They didnt help them because thier was no medic thier to help mabey some people might ofnknow some thing but most people didnt so they left them.

      Delete
    6. Well, if you tried to help someone in the war you might get shot easier since your not paying attention to the battle and there may have been no medics to help.

      Delete
    7. Well, when they entered the war, they should've known there was a possibility of dying and getting hurt. If you were hurt, you can't expect other people to help you out because they joined to fight, not to help others.

      Delete
  36. Like cole was saying how could they live that long with missing limbs and bolts in them wounded you think they would bleed out with in a few seconds or minutes and not two days later.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They probably supported them place they got shot and then it would prevent the bleeding a little...

      Delete
    2. Most of the time they wrapped shirts or pieces of cloth on the wounds to prevent bleeding to death. They had nurses and things if it was that bad, and for the most part, if you lost a leg you wouldn't be forced to keep fighting.

      Delete
    3. If its not necessary you don't have to have it.(you don't need limbs in order to last a few days, someone could have survived with just their head and body attached. if they didn't die of bleeding to death.)

      Delete
    4. Well for one part thier thier was no medic aroud so they just keep fighting and if you got you face blown off how would you survivie I did not know?

      Delete
  37. I can't believe why they wanted so many people out for war.. I mean I know its better to have more people but what if the other team was better and they actually killed more people??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They wanted more because more people were dieing and they need more or they wanted more for a better army to win and fight back.

      Delete
    2. They needed more people because people were dieing and they needed reinforcements.

      Delete
    3. Like William said, people were always dying and they always needed new people to replace them. And, at the time, some people saw it as bad if you didn't join. If you a boy of the time, you were practically a disgrace or a wimp if you didn't want to join. So some people were pressured into joining.

      Delete
  38. I was surprised how much of a role the navy played in WWI, because in the books I've read before this didn't mention the navy much.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. they didn't care about the navy at the time they played a huge role but I guess not enough to be in the history

      Delete
    2. It may not be an important event because air combat was a totally different battle than on the ground and not as many people probably died.

      Delete
    3. I did not think the navy was big in world war 1 until I read this book

      Delete
  39. I thought it was kind of awkward that the western front just stopped battling, and the fact that it was on the 11th day of the 11th month at 11 am. Do you think it was just coincidence or planned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought it was kind of cool, because they kept on fighting until right up to the last minute, then it just stopped.

      Delete
    2. It might have been a coincidence that that had happened...

      Delete
    3. Yah I thought it was weird that they would just give up and that it was probably a big plan.

      Delete
  40. The thing that really shocked me was when the Lusitania sunk. The Lusitania weighed 31,550 tons and was 787 feet long. You wouldn't think a U-Boat would be able to sink that. What do you guys think?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. that surprised me too, I would think it would take more than one hit. how did they not see it on the scanner?

      Delete
  41. one thing that surprised me was that more men were wounded than killed

    ReplyDelete