10 Myths About WW1 Debunked

[Patrick R]

I still hear a virtual sigh of relief when people mention 1914 and 1918 as being "better" because there was movement as if that alone justifies the same appalling casualty rates.  Troop losses on the Eastern Front where movements of hundreds of miles were not at all uncommon were just as bad.  Yet for some reason one likes to think that a war is far better run if the battle is fought over a 100km, losing 150,000 men than say 100,000 over 1km ...

There is one good reason why the fighting continued for so long.  One there was the trench deadlock as three nations poured as many troops into a relatively narrow gap.  The problem was that a breakthrough was almost impossible to achieve as troops could not advance fast enough to avoid being counterattacked by the reserves.

And there is a very important point that is overlooked.  For most of the war, nobody was actually losing (nobody was really winning either) ... The French and Belgians had lost parts (or most) of their country and Britain was there to make sure they got it back.  Germany had nabbed it and could afford to let the enemy bleed themselves trying to retake it (Verdun was a failed attempt to force the end of the war based on too many assumptions).  The Germans would not sign a peace treaty until the Allies agreed to sign a German version of the Versailles Treaty and give Germany her due part of the global cake, while the Allies had lost vital land, but were not at all defeated and would not stop until they got it back from Germany ...

[sukhe_bator]

Hows about the 11th myth - that the war ended in Nov 1918!
The ripple effect caused by the chaos of the conflict continued to spill over into conflict for years afterwards. Try telling that to the lads posted to the Baltic fleet, Archangel, Vladivostock, Persia and the Middle East and the Ukraine, or occupying Germany. For them the war didn't effectively end until 1921-22.
It would be interesting to hear if anyone has seen data compiled on British & Commonwealth servicemen who died in combat in the few years AFTER the Armistice.

[former user]

there actually is a theoretical construct of historiography that deals with exactly this concept

here the light version
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Civil_War

[joroas]

A fascinating concept that I had not thought of before...... 

[Patrick R]

there actually is a theoretical construct of historiography that deals with exactly this concept

here the light version
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Civil_War

Some even go as far back as the 30 Years war and call it the Great European War.

[former user]

it is simply a different way of constructing history and defining periods

cutting edge analysis does not fit here as perspective

just think WW1 and WW2 from the perspective of a chinese person in Mandschuria - the day Nazi soldiers crossed the polish border is simply irrelevant

[former user]

Yes, I understand.
What is innovative and sensational then?
History used to be a chain of wars, today it is the dynamic of sociological events.
I prefer to see it as a combination of many rivulets into a stream. For me the question is which part of the stream one regards, 2 m or 2 km - every perspective has it's logic and it's analysis

when someone asks me about the near east conflict, I tend to start with the Sykes Picot agreement and with anti jewish pogroms in tsarist russia. The starting point of causality is deliberate

[FramFramson]

History will mash together wars in the manner they find easy to teach or remember. Many conflicts which may have been viewed as separate in the past were later grouped together once several centuries added some perspective. Just look at the Hundred Years War.

Because we have not yet moved to the next great human conflict, the story of the last one (or last ones) is still in flux. Even then you can get some reinterpretation later. I think after a few centuries, the World Wars may find themselves lumped together, but that really depends on what follows. Will we have smaller wars, or larger ones? 

[former user]

I actually prefer the small ones, in 28mm 

[Cubs]

Arf.

Even the most learned historian can't be expected to know and understand all of history's conflicts, so when we do try to look at a particular war or period it's helpful to get an understanding of what came before and what came after. This then helps us to place events in history and, crucially, know why they happened and what they caused.

Of course it's over-simpified and misses important information, because we're only human and can only process a certain amount. I guess how deep we go into it depends on our capacity for learning (minimal in my case), our patience (ditto), motivation to learn (hmm) and ability to access and process the information in question. Ideally we'd all be able to take a God's eye view of events from the beginning of existence and understand how the pattern fits together, but anything more complicated than Risk and I'm out (this is how I learned geography ... what do you mean it isn't called Siam any more?).

With Dan Snow's article, I'm guessing he hasn't impressed too many here, but it has sparked a debate and maybe inspired some to learn more. It's important to remember the audience the article is aimed at as well, being on the main BBC site. It seems he has got the tone wrong and if people on here read it as him trying to trivialise WW1 then others will have as well. That's not how I read it, but it seems I'm in the minority.

[Cubs]

You've answered your own question there. If we don't understand why, we can't predict the likely effects of our actions and make informed judgements. The persistent failure to understand only underlines its importance.

[former user]

I tend to agree with that.
as @FramFramson said before, the mechanics of history become apparent only in the larger context.
with that perspective, we can claim that realpolitik is indeed detached from history, simply by the resolution we regard it with

[FramFramson]

I actually prefer the small ones, in 28mm 

Yes! Absolutely!

[former user]

recently I encountered the term "nano-aquariums"
not a clue what it is meant to be

[Cubs]

I believe Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar were Napoleon's areas of study and they affected his strategies a great deal. Military colleges still use such texts as Sun Tzu's 'Art of War' and Clausewitz's 'On War'. The Battle of Cannae as well, I recall, is one example that sticks in my head but not for the same reasons that many believe.

I do welcome the debate, yet I am stunned that anyone would think trying to understand history is not a prerequisite of studying it. The history that affects us goes back to the dawn of time, in fact our very existence, our birth, is reliant on a chain of circumstances that lead to our parents meeting and having a child.

To look at my own example, I live in Wales. Had the Romans, Saxons and Normans not invaded Britain my life would be very different. In all likelihood there would be no Wales as a nation because it has been defined by the encroachment of other nations to the east.

Had the industiral revolution not happened then Cardiff would not have become an important shipping town, transporting coal all round the world and being renowned for the university which specialised in engineering. Thus I would not have attended Cardiff University to study engineering, I wouldn't have met my wife, my daughter would not have been born etc.. etc..

Now, without understanding the 'why' of anything, we acquire no wisdom. Intelligence is about knowing, wisdom is about knowing why. The entire basis of when and why polititians make decisions lies on their ability to understand the circumstances and apply relevant prior experience to find a solution. How to act, whether to act, when to act.

Sadly the site rules forbid any delving into actual politics (probably best), but for influences on recent conflicts there are any number of past wars that should have been studied and understood. Just about any attempt to militarily occupy Afghanistan ends up with the same result. I think Vizzini in 'The Princess Bride' put it best when he said the best known of the classic blunders is to 'never get involved in a land war in Asia'!

The Spanish Civil War is a great example of how some governments failed to become involved when they possibly should have. Vietnam is a great example of the opposite.

WW1 and WW2 ... very difficult. Were they inevitable? Could different decisions by certain powers have made things better? Worse?

No, you have your opinion of course and it's great to hear some variety, but I repeat that simply pointing out someone's failure to understand history only underlines the its importance.