Ten myths on WWI - debunked

[Nessie]

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.

2. Most soldiers died. For British soldiers it was 11.5%, less than during the Crimean War.

3. Men lived in the trenches for years on end. More like 10 days a month and three in a row at the front line tops.

4. The upper class got off lightly. The death rate was 12% of soldiers, 17% of officers. Eton lost more than 1,000 former pupils - 20% of those who served.

5. 'Lions led by donkeys'. Over 200 generals killed, injured or captured and a unique type of war was won organising a multinational force.

6. Gallipoli was fought by Australians and New Zealanders. British losses were higher than both Australian and NZ and the French lost more than the Australians.

7. Tactics on the Western Front remained unchanged despite repeated failure. There were significant equipment and tactical changes during the war, from planes to helmets.

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.

9. The Versailles Treaty was extremely harsh. Germany was still the biggest and richest country in Europe and much of the reparations went unenforced. It was not as harsh as after WWII.

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

 

[Big Al]

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.

The death toll over 15 years includes civilian deaths from plague and famine (the majority of casualties). If the WWI civilian deaths are included, this brings the losses up to over 20 million. The lethal effectiveness of Spanish flu is often blamed on troop movements and large numbers of weakened and malnourished soldiers bringing it back home and spreading it. 50-100 million people died worldwide. So I think this one is moot but possibly cherry-picked.

2. Most soldiers died. For British soldiers it was 11.5%, less than during the Crimean War.

Percentages apart, in the Crimean War Britain lost 22,000 soldiers. In WWI it was nearly 900,000. So I think the "myth" is only untrue in a lawyerly sense.

Other than that, pretty much fair enough. I saw a fascinating documentary some years back about Douglas Haig (OC British Expeditionary Force). He was very much reviled as a "butcher" for the death tolls at the Somme, Passchendaele, Mons and so on, but the doc argued that he had an untested, hurriedly-trained largely conscript army that he had to sculpt into an effective fighting force. And by the end of the war, the British force was arguably in much better shape, effectively using tanks, planes, walking barrages and new tactics. Things were becoming more fluid and mobile all the time, and this new success, technology and professionalism if anything added to the Germans' dismay at the USA entering the war, and may have helped speed the surrender.

So Haig, it argued, was a pragmatist trying to fulfil his mission with a green and ineffective force that had to harden up if he was to succeed.

 

[Giz]

Yep. No "well known" war is as poorly understood as WW1 (at least in the UK).

I would suggest: "White Heat. The New Warfare 1914-1918" by John Terraine for a good introduction on how much things had changed both leading up to the war and during the war and why the battles turned out the way they did. (Hint: it's not so much about being unable to blast into a position guarded by machine guns as it is a matter of [a lack of] command & control and maneuver elements; breaking-in was relatively easy, breaking-out and exploitation was very hard given the technology of the time... hence while morale held you'd get attrition rather than dramatic war-ending battles).

http://www.amazon.com/White-Heat-The-Warfare-1914-1918/dp/B000ZJ2DE2

 

[Sideroxylon]

I doubt the Gallipoli myth is common among Australians and New Zealanders.

 

[Garrette]

The Taiping Rebellion thing has long been a favorite of mine to bring up when historical non-facts are put forth in conversation. Regardless if Taiping or WWI had the marginally higher death toll, the fact is that large scale warfare and suffering were not purely Western burdens. The Taiping Rebellion, too, helps when I try to talk to people (lately mainly my nearly-grown children) about the importance of context. The US Civil War is taught here, when taught at all, in virtually a vacuum, and the idea of British intervention on the side of the Confederacy, if raised at all, is treated as purely a moral decision. The reality is that Britain had bigger fish to fry; the economic realities of the Chinese market mattered more than southern cotton (not saying southern cotton didn't matter; just that it was not quite king.)

And the severity of the Treaty of Versailles is another favorite. Separate from not being enforced, it was not so harsh as it was made out, though harsh it was. And if it was harsh, Germany had little room to complain. Compare Versaille to Brest-Litovsk and see how harshly a German victor chose to treat a defeated Russia.

 

[theprestige]

For me the biggest myth of WWI was the one about Serbian anarchists. The onset of the war made a lot more sense to me after I discovered they were actually Serbian assassins who were trained, equipped, encouraged, and operationally supported in their mission by a pan-Serbian ultranationalist faction operating at the highest levels of the government in Belgrade.

And that is why Austria felt compelled to go to war with Serbia.

 

[rjh01]

I doubt the Gallipoli myth is common among Australians and New Zealanders.

The fact is that most of the Australian and New Zealand troops who were fighting at the time were in Gallipoli. They were still outnumbered by the British.

One other thing. The Turkish troops suffered more casualties than the Allies. Hence they were able to get out without too much trouble.

 

[rjh01]

Also I wonder how many soldiers who went to war in 1914 were still alive and able to fight in 1918? I think that % would not be very high.

 

[dudalb]

For me the biggest myth of WWI was the one about Serbian anarchists. The onset of the war made a lot more sense to me after I discovered they were actually Serbian assassins who were trained, equipped, encouraged, and operationally supported in their mission by a pan-Serbian ultranationalist faction operating at the highest levels of the government in Belgrade.

And that is why Austria felt compelled to go to war with Serbia.

Problem was that Austria was not going to be satified with punishing Serbia,but wanted to wipe it off the map entirely. And Russia could not permit that.
IMHO the last chance of stopping the catastprohe was the "Stop At Belgrade" idea...that Austria would seize Belgrade (which was only a few miles from the Austrian border) and occupy it until Serbia satisfied it that
Serbia was serous about cracking down on the terrorist groups and had purged the military of their supporters but move no further into Serbian territory..but Austria rejected it.

 

[Jhau]

I doubt the Gallipoli myth is common among Australians and New Zealanders.

Do you mean:

6. Gallipoli was fought by Australians and New Zealanders. British losses were higher than both Australian and NZ and the French lost more than the Australians.

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.

 

[arthwollipot]

If they'd grown up in Canberra, they'd know better. The Australian War Memorial has a big table with all the locations and troop numbers laid out.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

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.

Really? I don't know anyone that stupid. Who do they think were ordering our troops to their death exactly!?

 

[Jhau]

Really? I don't know anyone that stupid. Who do they think were ordering our troops to their death exactly!?

Oh, they think that the ANZACS were the unfortunate victims of unsympathetic, uncaring, incompetent British generals plus, of course, the then First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Yeah, but that is more or less true, yeah?

 

[sowhat]

If the idea here is to say that WWI wasn't all that bad, I think I have to disagree with that. Certainly with respect to the Western Front. Candidates for the worst war ever are not in short supply, but I can think of no other war, where the opposing sides remained locked in place for years, blasting each other to smithereens and then re-blasting the smithereens over and over. Living with decomposing corpses and body parts, rats, lice, up to your hips in water. Having your nerves shattered by never ending shell fire, whether it hit you or not. Regardless of whether the generalship was at fault or not, being ordered to "Walk. Do not run" into machine gun and pulverizing shell fire is not my idea of "it wasn't so bad".
Its all well and good to play "Let's re-write history". Say what you will. The diaries and recollections of the people who lived it seem to think it was rather unpleasant.

 

[theprestige]

If the idea here is to say that WWI wasn't all that bad, I think I have to disagree with that. Certainly with respect to the Western Front. Candidates for the worst war ever are not in short supply, but I can think of no other war, where the opposing sides remained locked in place for years, blasting each other to smithereens and then re-blasting the smithereens over and over. Living with decomposing corpses and body parts, rats, lice, up to your hips in water. Having your nerves shattered by never ending shell fire, whether it hit you or not. Regardless of whether the generalship was at fault or not, being ordered to "Walk. Do not run" into machine gun and pulverizing shell fire is not my idea of "it wasn't so bad".
Its all well and good to play "Let's re-write history". Say what you will. The diaries and recollections of the people who lived it seem to think it was rather unpleasant.

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.

 

[newyorkguy]

If the idea here is to say that WWI wasn't all that bad, I think I have to disagree with that...

I think I have to as well. Emphatically.

 

[angrysoba]

Oh, they think that the ANZACS were the unfortunate victims of unsympathetic, uncaring, incompetent British generals plus, of course, the then First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill.

Interestingly I was taught something similar in school in England(!) and was only contradicted a few years later by some Australians who told me that more British soldiers got killed at Gallipoli.

Here in Osaka, there is an Australian chef who puts on an Anzac Day meal which is roast kangaroo, crocodile, lamb and Turkish food. I went there and asked where the British beef was if we were celebrating Gallipoli, although this year I'll have to ask him about escargot as well.

Yeah, but that is more or less true, yeah?

No, I think the fact is that the generals didn't care who got killed (whoops! Did I just say something mythical?)

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.

I wonder if it is possible for the list to be completely accurate and for the war still to have been a Hellish waste of life and a Bad Thing.

America was thus clearly top nation, and History came to a.

 

[erwinl]

If the idea here is to say that WWI wasn't all that bad, I think I have to disagree with that. Certainly with respect to the Western Front. Candidates for the worst war ever are not in short supply, but I can think of no other war, where the opposing sides remained locked in place for years, blasting each other to smithereens and then re-blasting the smithereens over and over. Living with decomposing corpses and body parts, rats, lice, up to your hips in water. Having your nerves shattered by never ending shell fire, whether it hit you or not. Regardless of whether the generalship was at fault or not, being ordered to "Walk. Do not run" into machine gun and pulverizing shell fire is not my idea of "it wasn't so bad".
Its all well and good to play "Let's re-write history". Say what you will. The diaries and recollections of the people who lived it seem to think it was rather unpleasant.

This more or less only happened once. And while that certainly was an unmitigated disaster, there were good reasons at the time why that decision was made the way it was made.

 

[McHrozni]

F
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.

I'd argue that the war really wasn't won by anyone. Germany, Austria and Ottoman empire lost, yes, but so did Russia not to mention that French and British empires suffered near catastrophic losses for next to no gain. No participant got out better off than they went in. Some nations benefited from the war and got independence (Poland, Yugoslavia, etc) or saner government (Turkey), but all of those were on the side who lost.

9. The Versailles Treaty was extremely harsh. Germany was still the biggest and richest country in Europe and much of the reparations went unenforced. It was not as harsh as after WWII.

Non-sequitur, that the treaty wasn't enforced doesn't mean it wasn't harsh.

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

This also seems like a non-sequitur. Better food, more money and more freedom than at home but less/worse than in peace, doesn't necessarily mean you don't hate the war where you have approximately 15% chance of dying, a good chance of getting out maimed and a very good chance of lasting psychological trauma.
It's certainly true in the lawyery sense: some (from borderline to outright) psychopaths loved it, as happens in all wars.

McHrozni