10 Myths About WW1 Debunked

[Sterling Moose]

Not to derail the topic but to speak about changing attitudes.  I too served in Berlin, arriving 4 months or so after the Wall came down.  When I arrived we had unlimited access into East Berlin but weren't allowed to venture into East Germany.  This restriction was soon lifted and I visited Oranienburg Concentration Camp.  For a very small fee you could hire a tape recorder (remember them?) which gave a commentary as you walked around the camp.  Western influence hadn't invaded East Germany at that time, there were no neon signs, no chain stores of any kind, even the majority of the roads were still cobbled.  The tone of the tape was very much anti-Nazi, the Nazis did this, the Nazis did that etc.

I spent just over two years in Berlin and visited Oranienburg again not long before I was posted elsewhere.  The cassette machines were still there but this time the tone had changed, now it was the Nazis did this but the Soviets did that.

Interesting times.

[Plynkes]

Let's try and keep this reasonably on topic, chaps. We seem to have wandered off the point somewhat. This is the Great War Board, remember. 

[carlos marighela]

Ok let's morph this into Ten Myths about Wargaming The Great War by someone who once watched a program featuring Dan Snow and came away thinking Dan was a complete prat about five minutes into the program.

1. Wargaming the Great War really started about five years ago, when Brigade, Musketeer etc released popular ranges in 28mm

No, actually people have been gaming it for years. Minifigs had a nice and fairly extensive range in 15mm at least 25-30 years ago. Before that, there were the Wille, Tradition and Suren figures in 30mm. There were some really good rule sets available too. My favourite was Over the Top by the late Greg Novak, a sort of bastard child of Frank Chadwick's Command Decision WW2 rules. Excellent rules, with great sections on organisation and some really interesting and unusual scenarios.

Ok someone else's turn. Better than refighting the history wars after all.

[FramFramson]

Back to the questions on whether or not a given type of puttees were correct for a given unit then. 

[Hammers]

... the rhineland starts the carnival season and gets beastly drunk starting  8 o'clock in the morning.... 

A very worthwhile occupation. Life goes on, after all.
 

[Captain Blood]

Ok let's morph this into Ten Myths about Wargaming The Great War by someone who once watched a program featuring Dan Snow and came away thinking Dan was a complete prat about five minutes into the program.

1. Wargaming the Great War really started about five years ago, when Brigade, Musketeer etc released popular ranges in 28mm

No, actually people have been gaming it for years. Minifigs had a nice and fairly extensive range in 15mm at least 25-30 years ago. Before that, there were the Wille, Tradition and Suren figures in 30mm. There were some really good rule sets available too. My favourite was Over the Top by the late Greg Novak, a sort of bastard child of Frank Chadwick's Command Decision WW2 rules. Excellent rules, with great sections on organisation and some really interesting and unusual scenarios.

Ok someone else's turn. Better than refighting the history wars after all.

Now THAT is one of the best posts on a wargames forum ever 
Nice one Carlos, in every respect.

[former user]

Back to the questions on whether or not a given type of puttees were correct for a given unit then. 

there are "types" of puttees?

[FramFramson]

Fat or thin?

Muddy or clean?

Your pick of colour?

What will the fashionable man of the trenches choose?

[Cubs]

uniforms neat or weathered?

Weathered, always weathered.

A nice big myth is that it was all about the trenches on the Western Front. There are some fascinating theatres of operation to read about and I discover a new one from time to time.

I used to be all about the Middle East and Lawrence (a big bag of myths in itself) and then recently read about ops in East Africa against Von Lettow-Vorbeck.

[westwaller]

Interesting article, Cubs.

I think the problem about this article is its format. It is very much the kind of 'what you thought you knew was wrong' type article that gives the misleading idea that history can be boiled down to 'facts' or truths and untruths.

I do not see the phrases 'It could be argued' or 'whilst some people think this, others have theorised that... I think the statistics for the Civil War are estimated to be higher by 'proper' historians as well. I thought the BBCs remit was to educate.

The BBC is fast turning itself into a public disservice!!

[Cubs]

Oh hell, I've long ago abandoned the BBC as anything but a hint as to information. Their 'title' vs 'content' comparisons are often very amusing as are their editting protocols when they want to skew a story in a certain direction, so they spin it to maximise their favoured information and bury that which contradicts it.

I just like to collate lots of opinion (every historian has their own viewpoint) to try to get some perspective on events and attitudes. I don't know if it's even worth trying to formulate a solid opinion of my own a lot of the time because it's too easy to find some new text that makes me rethink things all over again. Try reading about Wingate and the Chindits and you will run into a lot of strong and conflicting opinion!

[westwaller]

I just like to collate lots of opinion (every historian has their own viewpoint) to try to get some perspective on events and attitudes.

Quite right, that is the way to approach history I think. Have your own opinion by all means but read the others opinions too. I think the use of the word 'Myths' in the title of the article is the problem really, oh and Dan Snow's obvious arrogance...

[Cubs]

except they all agree he had far too much interest in his stools.

[dm]

Myths busted or not The Great War left very deep scars and a massive sense of loss in the minds of the majority of the UK public. I do not trust any politician (of whatever ilk) who would try and use any past war for political gain. I trust and place greater faith in the writings of those who were there and that each man is affected in different ways by war both during and after.

[Montiboy]

Adding my contribution to the discussion, from a French side.

I don't like that 10 myths debunked. I believe it is easy to speak about how we were wrong about WW1, 100 years later and without having fought it. Mostly the war was the first industrial trench warfare were men had been spent headlessly between 1915 to 1917, when (in France at least), to gain 1 kilometer you have lost 1 regiment. Statistics will show that it may be only 1% of whatever overall picture, but for an offensive, it was common to see 50% or more casualties, light wounded would be sent back to the front.

The first and the last year were more movement base and less difficult to support as the soldier do not station at the same place and more news come to give a larger sense than just his hole in the middle of hell.

In France we still have the memorials to the deads for ww1. In small villages you can read the names of 10 to 20 men deads during the 4 years of the war. That 10 to 20 people from the 20 to 40 year old population who died. Not sure saying these casualties are peanuts when looking at the big picture would make sense.

Wargaming wise, I believe the morale effects of ww1 are difficult to represent and I have not found a good and easy ruleset that give the feeling of what soldiers (of all ranks) may have experienced.
Talking about Lions and Donkeys, many high ranks generals never experienced trench warfare and new only about glorious offensive and cunning tactics. It took many failed attacks to find out they were useless. Most men fought and died bravely, even if for some reluctantly. My great grand father (the only one I knew) fought in Verdun, was wounded twice and lost a lung and almost died of bleeding out, but even so, he was always send back until the war ends.

20% of the French soldiers aged between 19 to 27 in 1914 died.
65% of all mobilized French forces during the war had been killed or wounded.