Ten myths on WWI - debunked

[Garrette]

True, Allenby's campaigh is a good example of well conducted maneuver warfare too.

And Lettow-Vorbeck for the Germans in East Africa.

It always reminds me somewhat of the disconnect between the Western perception of the Soviet Union during the Cold War and the reality; it was difficult to understand quite how hugely the Great Patriotic War loomed in Soviet minds and how this effected their policies.

And WWI. Neither Russia nor the Soviet Union were innocents, but as I have grown and read more, my dismay over misperceptions and lost opportunities has grown. The Soviet Union may have been a nasty totalitarian place during the Cold War, but from a geo-political view there is some credibility to the thought that they were aggrieved. As I told one of my children recently, I can imagine Khruschev saying Of course we don't trust you. At least we have never invaded you!

 

[KDLarsen]

And Lettow-Vorbeck for the Germans in East Africa.

I recall reading somewhere that Lettow-Vorbeck was supplied a large quantity of horses by Karen Blixen, which caused a bit of friction with the local folks of the British empire. Her brother earning the VC later on, apparently made it possible to recover some standing.

 

[Garrette]

I recall reading somewhere that Lettow-Vorbeck was supplied a large quantity of horses by Karen Blixen, which caused a bit of friction with the local folks of the British empire. Her brother earning the VC later on, apparently made it possible to recover some standing.

I had to look her up. I did not know her pen name or this story. Thanks.

 

[KDLarsen]

I had to look her up. I did not know her pen name or this story. Thanks.

Sorry, a bit of local patriotic history. About all we did in the War (other than laying out mines under pressure from Germany, and forgetting to arm them under pressure from the UK).

 

[Garrette]

Sorry, a bit of local patriotic history.

No apologies necessary. I like this stuff.

About all we did in the War (other than laying out mines under pressure from Germany, and forgetting to arm them under pressure from the UK).

Hah. Reminds me of my time in SERE. Time working in the faux POW camp entailed appearing to work without actually doing so, e.g., cutting a hole in the sandbag so you could continue to fill the same one for hours...

 

[KDLarsen]

No apologies necessary. I like this stuff.

Hah. Reminds me of my time in SERE. Time working in the faux POW camp entailed appearing to work without actually doing so, e.g., cutting a hole in the sandbag so you could continue to fill the same one for hours...

The trouble was, we were supposed to be neutral, and the first demand (that we mine the straits and belts) would have been a pretty aggressive move to make, and one that could have led to the Triple Entente questioning the neutrality. However, we had also been spanked pretty damn hard in 1864, losing a third of our territory in the process, so noone doubted what the outcome would be if the demand was rejected.

However, through some murky channels (helped by King Christian X being cousin with George V), a message may or may not have been passed through to the British government, stating that although mines would be placed in the straits and belts, these would not be armed.

I'll readily admit I've only read it from a single source, but it sounds typical of Christian X, so I wouldn't be surpried if it actually happened.

 

[sarge]

No apologies necessary. I like this stuff.

Hah. Reminds me of my time in SERE. Time working in the faux POW camp entailed appearing to work without actually doing so, e.g., cutting a hole in the sandbag so you could continue to fill the same one for hours...

Slight derail...

Which Sere school did you attend? I visited Camp McCall in the very early 80s myself.

 

[Garrette]

Slight derail...

Which Sere school did you attend? I visited Camp McCall in the very early 80s myself.

USAFA's as a USMA cadet guest, so not the patch-worthy one.

 

[Pope130]

Slight derail...

Which Sere school did you attend? I visited Camp McCall in the very early 80s myself.

More derail (sorry). I went to Fairchild in Oct. '89.

 

[Avery Dashwood]

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

While it's true that the U.S. did not declare war directly as a result of the sinking, it would be going too far (I think) to call it a myth, as that would suggest that it wasn't a factor. Germany's unrestricted submarine warfare was a massive reason for the U.S. entry into WWI. The Sinking of the Lusitania was inseparable from this policy. It was very much a stepping stone on the road to war.

 

[Giz]

While it's true that the U.S. did not declare war directly as a result of the sinking, it would be going too far (I think) to call it a myth, as that would suggest that it wasn't a factor. Germany's unrestricted submarine warfare was a massive reason for the U.S. entry into WWI. The Sinking of the Lusitania was inseparable from this policy. It was very much a stepping stone on the road to war.

IIRC, when Germany resumed unrestricted submarine warfare in 1917 they did indeed consider that it would probably bring the USA into the war... they just thought that the war would be decided before the USA could materially impact the decision. (However, due to them thinking that the USA would be joining the Allies, they sent the Zimmerman telegram to prepare against said eventuality... oops)

 

[sarge]

USAFA's as a USMA cadet guest, so not the patch-worthy one.

AFAIK, none of them were patch worthy. I didn't get one from the JFK school, anyway.

As for WWI myths, the US Marines most probably did not get the nickname "Devil Dogs" from grudgingly admiring German foes at Belleau Wood. It is most likely the invention of US correspondent Floyd Gibbons. It is a fine story, however, and the Marines certainly earned the nickname even if it wasn't the Germans that awarded it.

 

[gumboot]

A wee WWI myth...

The name "digger" is most commonly applied to Australian soldiers, and less commonly, to New Zealand soldiers. The theory is that the name came about because the Australians spent so much time desperately digging trenches in Gallipoli.

In fact, the name "Digger" developed on the Western Front, and was first used by the New Zealanders to refer to the New Zealand Pioneer Battalion, because so many of them had been gum diggers in their previous life. (Likewise, the Rifle Battalion were known as "Dinks").

In short time, the name "digger" came to be associated with all New Zealand soldiers, and from there all ANZAC soldiers (as they tended to stick together and the other allied soldiers frequently confused the two).

Australia embraced the name more readily than New Zealand, so now it's synonymous with Australian soldiers.

 

[fleabeetle]

I needed to go to Google to find out what a gum digger was...

Hitherto, I'd believed the explanation given to me in childhood: that the British had associated the Australians with the goldfields in various parts of the continent, and so dubbed the Aussies "diggers" = gold diggers. You live and learn !

 

[catsmate]

And Lettow-Vorbeck for the Germans in East Africa.

A bit of the war that gets forgotten about.

And WWI. Neither Russia nor the Soviet Union were innocents, but as I have grown and read more, my dismay over misperceptions and lost opportunities has grown. The Soviet Union may have been a nasty totalitarian place during the Cold War, but from a geo-political view there is some credibility to the thought that they were aggrieved. As I told one of my children recently, I can imagine Khruschev saying Of course we don't trust you. At least we have never invaded you!

True. Poles, 'Whites', British, Japanese, Germans.............

 

[llwyd]

Well, this sounds like typical generational historiography where you make name for yourself by overdoing some in itself necessary debunking. The earlier view of absolute evil and incompetent shambles was overly simplified and misleading. But this present "revisionism" about noble and brilliant generals leading a great fight for liberty does go much too far to the other direction.

It was a horror, a suicide of European civilization - and none of the original leaders of the armies got what they wanted out of that nightmare of a war. Though some at the time lesser known figures did: Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini... I think I pretty much would go for Rosenberg and Sorley as judging that war. Here's Rosenberg's best poem about the conflict, sums it up for me rather well:

The darkness crumbles away
It is the same old druid Time as ever,
Only a live thing leaps my hand,
A queer sardonic rat,
As I pull the parapet's poppy
To stick behind my ear.
Droll rat, they would shoot you if they knew
Your cosmopolitan sympathies,
Now you have touched this English hand
You will do the same to a German
Soon, no doubt, if it be your pleasure
To cross the sleeping green between.
It seems you inwardly grin as you pass
Strong eyes, fine limbs, haughty athletes,
Less chanced than you for life,
Bonds to the whims of murder,
Sprawled in the bowels of the earth,
The torn fields of France.
What do you see in our eyes
At the shrieking iron and flame
Hurled through still heavens?
What quaver -what heart aghast?
Poppies whose roots are in men's veins
Drop, and are ever dropping;
But mine in my ear is safe,
Just a little white with the dust.

 

[barehl]

the other bit that a creeping barrage depended on was being able to precisely calibrate where the shells from each gun would land. Planners were quite aware that new artillery barrels delivered higher velocities, and thus greater range, but the creators of artillery firing tables hadn't reached the stage by WWI of calculating for barrel wear (and other non-standard conditions, such as differences in projectile weight, atmospheric conditions, and in really big pieces, rotation of the earth) as most light artillery was invisaged as a direct fire weapon where the gunners would be shooting over open sights (French 75mm, British 13 pdr, and the German 77mm guns demonstrate this philosphy), and so the need to be able to compensate for the non-standard conditions wasn't needed for those pieces as the layer could simply compensate for them with the next shot, like a rifleman could. Using them as indirect fire weapons required being able to compensate for these conditions, and no real research had been done on what non-standard conditions would do to artillery projectiles until 1915/16 and for the British Commonwealth weren't ready until late 1916.

Okay, this doesn't sound right to me. American artillery was more accurate than this during the Civil War with smooth bore "Napoleon" canons. Ranging and flight time was accurate enough that they were able to air burst rounds using precise timing fuses. Also, I saw a demonstration of an 1890 model French gun firing against a modern Army gun. They missed the 10'x20' target with the first shot but hit the target with the next two. The Army team was never able to hit the target. This probably reflects the fact that modern direct fire has been taken over by tanks and TOW missiles instead of field guns. During WWI, direct fire was almost useless until the British fielded tanks. A tank is a very good target for direct fire. The vast majority of fire was indirect.

 

[erwinl]

Okay, this doesn't sound right to me. American artillery was more accurate than this during the Civil War with smooth bore "Napoleon" canons. Ranging and flight time was accurate enough that they were able to air burst rounds using precise timing fuses. Also, I saw a demonstration of an 1890 model French gun firing against a modern Army gun. They missed the 10'x20' target with the first shot but hit the target with the next two. The Army team was never able to hit the target. This probably reflects the fact that modern direct fire has been taken over by tanks and TOW missiles instead of field guns. During WWI, direct fire was almost useless until the British fielded tanks. A tank is a very good target for direct fire. The vast majority of fire was indirect.

The issue is shooting at targets way beyond your visible horizon. Something which they didn't do during the American Civil War (possibly with some exceptions).
And not only that, but coordinating that fire exactly with some hundreds of other guns, some tens of thousands of infantry, both in time and in space.

That is something which had never been done before and which had to be learned the hard way.

 

[barehl]

While it's true that the U.S. did not declare war directly as a result of the sinking, it would be going too far (I think) to call it a myth, as that would suggest that it wasn't a factor. Germany's unrestricted submarine warfare was a massive reason for the U.S. entry into WWI. The Sinking of the Lusitania was inseparable from this policy. It was very much a stepping stone on the road to war.

Well, you can judge the truth of this fairly easily by looking at events.

May 7, 1915: The Lusitania is sunk by torpedo.

During 1915, the Germans sunk 1.3 million tons of merchant ships.

July 9, 1916: The unarmed 2,300 ton submarine Deutschland arrives in Baltimore on a trading mission.
Public domain photo.

November 1916: Deutschland arrives in New London, Connecticut for a second trading mission.

During 1916, the Germans sunk 2.3 million tons of merchant ships.

January 1917: A third trip is canceled. In February, Deutschland was fitted with six torpedo tubes and two 150mm canons. On March 28, 1917, it became U-155.

In January 1917, Germany's 150 divisions of troops faced 190 divisions. The British blockade was effective and Germany lacked enough surface strength to break it.

February 1, 1917: Unrestricted German U-boat warfare resumes.

February 3, 1917: The US breaks off diplomatic relations with Germany.

April 6, 1917: The US declares war.

****

From this timeline, it is clear that the Lusitania did not precipitate the American entry into WWI (as I was told in high school). The US was still allowing German trading more than a year later. The precipitating event does seem to be the move back to unrestricted submarine warfare.

 

[barehl]

The issue is shooting at targets way beyond your visible horizon. Something which they didn't do during the American Civil War (possibly with some exceptions).

I'm not sure what you are talking about. The horizon is about 6 miles away on flat ground. Warships during WWI routinely fired over the horizon whereas, on the battlefield, this was not the case. The support artillery was not firing from miles behind the front lines. Indirect fire only means that you are firing at low velocity in a ballistic arc at something beyond your view. This was done during the Civil War. If the enemy was within view, you would normally be using canisters of grape shot.

And not only that, but coordinating that fire exactly with some hundreds of other guns, some tens of thousands of infantry, both in time and in space.

Bombardment by artillery before an attack was common during the Civil War. Coordination was done by flag and bugle signals. Obviously, you can't hear a bugle during a bombardment and flag signals require a direct line of sight which can be obscured by smoke. With these difficulties, I'm not surprised they relied on timing instead of signaling.