Ten myths on WWI - debunked

[lionking]

"Myth" number 2 is utter rubbish in its comparison to Crimea.

 

[geni]

From a BBC article, published a few days ago

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

1. It was the bloodiest war in history to that point. The Taiping Rebellion in China had killed more.

Questionable. In order to make an equivelent comparison you'd have to add the spanish flu deaths to the WW1 total which would put it back in the lead.

8. No-one won. Germany surrendered before the country was crushed as Hitler insisted it should be in WWII. It was still a loss to Germany.

That doesn't mean anyone won.

10. Everyone hated it. Those not on the front line often had better food, more money and more freedom than at home.

We don't know. A lot of the documents relating to the Etaples Mutiny no longer exist or are still locked down under the official secrets act.

 

[rjh01]

I look this photo a number of years ago at the War memorial in Canberra. Compare the Turkish casualties with the sum of the rest. Lucky for us the Turkish did not send troops to fight in France.

 

[atecom]

Quite a few of these seem to be from the British side as well.

"Those not on the front line often had better food, more money and more freedom than at home."

Could this have been said about the Germans, particularly towards the end of the war?

 

[McHrozni]

I red the actual article, and found this rather cynical, under point 9:

The treaty was notably less harsh than treaties that ended the 1870-71 Franco-Prussian War and World War Two. The German victors in the former annexed large chunks of two rich French provinces, part of France for between 2-300 years, and home to most of French iron ore production, as well as presenting France with a massive bill for immediate payment.

Well, the same two territories were taken back from Germany with Versailles, plus territories it held in the north were granted to Denmark who didn't even fight in the war, plus it lost territories to Poland, plus all colonies.

Cynical is the only way to describe it, really.

McHrozni

 

[atecom]

I red the actual article, and found this rather cynical, under point 9:

The treaty was notably less harsh than treaties that ended the 1870-71 Franco-Prussian War and World War Two. The German victors in the former annexed large chunks of two rich French provinces, part of France for between 2-300 years, and home to most of French iron ore production, as well as presenting France with a massive bill for immediate payment.

Well, the same two territories were taken back from Germany with Versailles, plus territories it held in the north were granted to Denmark who didn't even fight in the war, plus it lost territories to Poland, plus all colonies.

Cynical is the only way to describe it, really.

McHrozni

And Although not as a direct result of that treaty, more due to Germany's defaults on payments, Belgium and France ended up annexing the Ruhr, Germany's major industrial area (Which I guess also puts further question on the claim 'much of the reparations went unenforced')

 

[Andy_Ross]

Treaties like Versailles and the one at the end of the Franco-Prussian War were the usual way of settling wars and who had won and lost.
It ensured there would be a good reason for another war when the 'losing' side rebuilt it's army and decided it wanted it's territory back and a bit of the neighbors as well


As far as casualty rates. Yes there were a lot of casualties in WW1 but there were big armies involved.
Look at the % rate and it was no worse than many other wars.

How do you count the Flu as war casualties? only if you want to inflate the total to make them stack in your favour.

As for enjoying the war. One of my Great Uncles was called up in to the Artillery and spent 4 years in the Caribbean, he loved it. Another was n the Royal Navy and spent the war on the China Station. He loved it.
My Grandad was in the Royal Horse Artillery on the Western Front. He was hospitalised after being gassed and was wounded. On the whole he enjoyed it. Apart from the prospect of sudden death he says most of the time was boredom. Actual fighting took up only a small proportion of their time.

 

[McHrozni]

And Although not as a direct result of that treaty, more due to Germany's defaults on payments, Belgium and France ended up annexing the Ruhr, Germany's major industrial area (Which I guess also puts further question on the claim 'much of the reparations went unenforced')

Exactly. Furthermore, the reparations were limited by "how much Germany could pay", indicating they amounted to everything Germany could pay, and a harsher reparation was as such impossible.

Germany lost approximately 11% of it's population due to territorial changes alone, excluding the colonies. That's comparable to US loosing California today. I certainly would call this harsh.

McHrozni

 

[Andy_Ross]

You have to put it in to context with other wars and treaties though

 

[Border Reiver]

Do you mean:



If so, then unfortunately, I must disagree with you. Regrettably, despite studying it as part of history lessons on-and-off for a few years at school, a dismayingly large number of Australians think that the Gallipoli campaign was exclusively waged by the ANZACS (Australia New Zealand Army Corps) against the Turks.

I'm Australian myself and I've actually had arguments (thankfully only verbal, not physical) when I've mentioned in conversation to other Australians that along with the ANZACS at Gallipoli Cove, there were large numbers of British and French troops, along with Indian and Canadian troops. I've been told flat out that I'm wrong and that there were only ANZACS there and that I'm full of rubbish.

Small correction - there were no Canadians at Gallipoli - the Royal Newfoundland Regiment was there, but Newfoundland did not become a Canadian province until 1949. At that time the Blue Puttees were the soldiers of a separate Dominion.

 

[sowhat]

You should probably read the list. A few of the items on it seem to contradict your perception of life in the trenches, and your concept of trench warfare in WW1.

From what they have said in their diaries and letters, and in live interviews, the people who actually lived it seem to have had a different perception. I'll go with that.

 

[Polaris]

An eleventh myth: the US entered the war because of the sinking of the Lusitania.

 

[McHrozni]

You have to put it in to context with other wars and treaties though

Which ones? The preceding war between France and Germany was arguably much milder - France lost approximately 4% of population, and was able to pay the reparations quickly. It was strategically important, but so was the Rhur and German east. Versailles also demanded that the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, where Russia (effectively) surrendered to be renounced, wiping out all gains in the east.

One may argue whether labeling it "extreme" is justified, but it was pretty bad, possibly the worst until WW2.

McHrozni

 

[angrysoba]

Which ones? The preceding war between France and Germany was arguably much milder - France lost approximately 4% of population, and was able to pay the reparations quickly. It was strategically important, but so was the Rhur and German east. Versailles also demanded that the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, where Russia (effectively) surrendered to be renounced, wiping out all gains in the east.

One may argue whether labeling it "extreme" is justified, but it was pretty bad, possibly the worst until WW2.

McHrozni

No, the Taiping Rebellion was almost certainly worse, and the Mongol Conquests may have been too.

With the Taiping Rebellion the death tolls are almost impossible to calculate above a certain number, although it seems to be agreed that an absolute minimum of 20,000,0000 people were killed, with some estimates going to 100,000,000!

 

[atecom]

When comparing battle statistics and casualties, it could be of relevance to note that this war at the time had one of the highest casualty rates from actual fighting compared to disease. Not only was the casualty rate much higher than most previous wars (Tai Ping Rebellion, An Lushan Rebellion, Combined total of Napoleonic Wars as possible exceptions), but far more of these died in the actual fighting.

Although I don't think anyone is really trying to argue that the fighting wasn't horrendous, on both the Western Front and the oft overlooked Eastern front, Its hard to know what perspective this list is trying to portray.

 

[atecom]

No, the Taiping Rebellion was almost certainly worse, and the Mongol Conquests may have been too.

With the Taiping Rebellion the death tolls are almost impossible to calculate above a certain number, although it seems to be agreed that an absolute minimum of 20,000,0000 people were killed, with some estimates going to 100,000,000!

My understanding is casualty numbers for that were mostly based of census numbers. Is that correct? (I often get many features of this confused with the An Lushan rebellion, which according to some sources saw even more deaths)

 

[Giz]

And Although not as a direct result of that treaty, more due to Germany's defaults on payments, Belgium and France ended up annexing the Ruhr, Germany's major industrial area (Which I guess also puts further question on the claim 'much of the reparations went unenforced')

Occupied from 1923 to 1925. Not a very long term "annexation".

 

[Giz]

As far as casualty rates. Yes there were a lot of casualties in WW1 but there were big armies involved.
Look at the % rate and it was no worse than many other wars.

Indeed. In fact, if you compare the deaths per division per week, between the Somme (generally seen as a bloody massacre of British troops) and the Normandy campaign (generally seen as a triumph):

The Somme:
Number of weeks 20.5
British divisions engaged: 53
Total dead: 95,000
Dead per division per week: 89

Normandy:
Number of weeks 11.5
British divisions engaged: 19
Total dead: 22,000
Dead per division per week: 100

Of course, there were a greater number, as opposed to rate, of casualualties in WW1... but that happens when you have a bigger army fighting for a more prolonged period of time... which happens when you (and the French) have to do the hard job of breaking the bulk of the German Army instead of having most of the work done by the Russians (which was the case in WW2). (In WW1 the proportion of the German Army assigned to the Western Front was typically 2/3rds to 90%).

 

[sarge]

Indeed. In fact, if you compare the deaths per division per week, between the Somme (generally seen as a bloody massacre of British troops) and the Normandy campaign (generally seen as a triumph):

The Somme:
Number of weeks 20.5
British divisions engaged: 53
Total dead: 95,000
Dead per division per week: 89

Normandy:
Number of weeks 11.5
British divisions engaged: 19
Total dead: 22,000
Dead per division per week: 100

Of course, there were a greater number, as opposed to rate, of casualualties in WW1... but that happens when you have a bigger army fighting for a more prolonged period of time... which happens when you (and the French) have to do the hard job of breaking the bulk of the German Army instead of having most of the work done by the Russians (which was the case in WW2). (In WW1 the proportion of the German Army assigned to the Western Front was typically 2/3rds to 90%).

Were British divisions significantly smaller during WWI than WWII?

 

[Giz]

Were British divisions significantly smaller during WWI than WWII?

Short answer: Not really.

Long answer: it depends on exactly when you are talking about in each WW. For the purpose of comparing 1916 to 1944, they would be similar (the WW1 division would have 12 infantry battalions as opposed to 9 in the WW2, but the WW2 division would have some extra stuff to make up the numbers in other areas).

(So, roughly the same for comparative purposes).