10 WWI myths debunked

[Oberon]

Worth a read:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25776836

Fear not, it's not revisionist rubbish like Gove's attempt at political grandstanding. :03:

[MGR1]

Good stuff!:up:

Mind you, I'm an amateur historian, so none of what Dan Snow's written comes as any surprise.

I deliberately didn't do history at school because I knew we were going to get all the same old drivel. One of my school mates waxed lyrical about HMS Dreadnought after one class - I completely threw him when I informed him she was clapped out and obsolescent by 1914! You should have seen his face - talk about a mental short circuit!!:haha:

Mike.:D

[Sailor Steve]

Fascinating. :sunny:

Most of my knowledge of the period is quite specific, so I was unaware of much of the big picture. Thanks for sharing that.

[Herr-Berbunch]

Looking at the stats, Eton isn't a good grounding for going to war!

[fireftr18]

Interesting article. Some of the things I didn't even think about. Some things were indeed against what I have been taught.

[Tribesman]

#5 is misleading.
Alan Clark made up the source of the quote, but the words in the quote were contemporary and in many cases perfectly accurate.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I don't have much problem buying the other points, but I must wonder about

9. The Versailles Treaty was extremely harsh

Why does no one even make a pipsqueak about the military stuff, which IMHO is really the harshest part of all. You can lose land (to an extent), you can lose money ... you can recover. Lose your Army, and you are at the mercy of others. What part of this is so hard to understand?

[Raptor1]

It might not be revisionist, but some of these seem to be either confusing the issue or misleading:

About being the bloodiest war up to that point, it is true that it was certainly less bloody in terms of total death count or deaths as a percentage of the population compared to some previous conflicts like the Taiping Rebellion or the Thirty Years' War, but the main cause of deaths in these were due to indirect effects of the war on the civilian population like disease and famine while a vastly larger proportion of deaths in World War I were caused by direct military action. Also, all of these happened over a period of time several times longer than World War I.

As for military deaths, though, I can't really see how the percentage of British deaths compared to a previous war can change the fact that World War I had vastly more military casualties than any other war prior to it. Granted, more soldiers fought in it as well, but if the question was just how many died as a function of how many participated I could find any number of wars which had much higher casualty rates, like the War of the Sixth Coalition.

Beyond that, I can't see how the Treaty of Frankfurt that ended the Franco-Prussian War was in any way more harsh than the Treaty of Versailles. The only real effects of the former was the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine by Germany and reparations by Germany. Versailles not only had Germany pay reparations and give back Alsace-Lorraine, it also gave large territories of the German Empire to Poland, Czechoslovakia and so forth, stripped Germany of all its colonies and practically eliminated the German army as a fighting force, or at least as a threat to the Allies. Granted, I don't know how much value the land lost had to Germany compared to what France lost in the Franco-Prussian War or what the difference was between the reparations those two treaties called for (though I bet the amount at Versailles was much higher), but it still seems much "harsher" to me, for lack of a better term. What they say about the end of World War II doesn't seem to be comparable to me; World War II in Europe wasn't ended by a peace treaty, it was ended by the destruction of the previous regime in Germany and its complete occupation by several major powers. The situation is much different to the circumstances under which World War I ended, not to mention much more complicated, for it to be simply declared as "more harsh".

Besides that, I seriously doubt that just because British soldiers had some better conditions meant that they instantly liked the war, and that doesn't even get into other armies which operated under worse conditions. It's a bit hard to prove exactly how many people...err, "enjoyed" the war, though...

[MH]

It might not be revisionist, but some of these seem to be either confusing the issue or misleading:

About being the bloodiest war up to that point, it is true that it was certainly less bloody in terms of total death count or deaths as a percentage of the population compared to some previous conflicts like the Taiping Rebellion or the Thirty Years' War, but the main cause of deaths in these were due to indirect effects of the war on the civilian population like disease and famine while a vastly larger proportion of deaths in World War I were caused by direct military action. Also, all of these happened over a period of time several times longer than World War I.

As for military deaths, though, I can't really see how the percentage of British deaths compared to a previous war can change the fact that World War I had vastly more military casualties than any other war prior to it. Granted, more soldiers fought in it as well, but if the question was just how many died as a function of how many participated I could find any number of wars which had much higher casualty rates, like the War of the Sixth Coalition.


:salute:

About the other point i have no idea.

This seems like an attempt by the author to write something controversial without thinking it over.

[NeonSamurai]

Ya I agree with most of the criticism. Another important point is for ww2 a lot of money was spent rebuilding the economy of Germany (and Japan), in the hopes of preventing yet another war that Versailles had a role in causing.

But everything now is murky, as WW1 is completely in the past now, and archeologists examine the ruins.

[Jimbuna]

Interesting and unaware how often units were rotated in and out of the trenches.

[MGR1]

#5 is misleading.
Alan Clark made up the source of the quote, but the words in the quote were contemporary and in many cases perfectly accurate.

I've read it was indeed a German remark, but about French generals in the Franco-Prussian war! Either way, it's good copy, and undoubtedly painful for Snow as his Grandfather was one of the commanders who couldn't make the transition to modern warfare.:03:

If you want an example of a spectacularly bad WW1 general, look up Luigi Cadorna.

Twelve Battles of the Isonzo? The last being a major Italian defeat.

Mike.

[Catfish]

And then there is german General Deimling ... :)

[MGR1]

Diemling was a subordinate commander (albeit a strange one, looking at his bio :o), whilst Cadorna did more human damage as he was Italian C-in-C.

I'm still surprised that the Italian troops didn't mutiny like their French counterparts. Which brings me to the French generals - they were no great prize either!

It just goes to show that if you dig deeper, you'll find that very few senior officers in WW1 acquitted themselves well, regardless of nationality. Just singling out the British for special treatment is being disingenuous.

IMHO,

Mike.

[fireftr18]

A friend of mine found this and posted it on facebook.
It's small feature about trench warfare in WW1.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z3kgjxs?stp_zykgjxs=3#zykgjxs3

[soopaman2]

Is that the same Dan Snow who did a show with his dad Peter Snow, talking about modern famous battles.? That show was epic.

Looking at the pics, it is, I like this guy alot, great journalist, and a lover of history.

:up:

See we even know the Snow in America!