World War Myths debunked

sherbz

Deity
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
2,532
Location
London
An interesting article on the First World War and the various myths on the BBC:

Much of what we think we know about the 1914-18 conflict is wrong, writes historian Dan Snow.

No war in history attracts more controversy and myth than World War One.

For the soldiers who fought it was in some ways better than previous conflicts, and in some ways worse.

By setting it apart as uniquely awful we are blinding ourselves to the reality of not just WW1 but war in general. We are also in danger of belittling the experience of soldiers and civilians caught up in countless other appalling conflicts throughout history and the present day.

1. It was the bloodiest war in history to that point
Fifty years before WW1 broke out, southern China was torn apart by an even bloodier conflict. Conservative estimates of the dead in the 14-year Taiping rebellion start at between 20 and 30 million. Around 17 million soldiers and civilians were killed during WW1.

Although more Britons died in WW1 than any other conflict, the bloodiest war in our history relative to population size is the Civil War which raged in the mid-17th Century. It saw a far higher proportion of the population of the British Isles killed than the less than 2% who died in WW1. By contrast around 4% of the population of England and Wales, and considerably more than that in Scotland and Ireland, are thought to have been killed in the Civil War.

2. Most soldiers died
In the UK around six million men were mobilised, and of those just over 700,000 were killed. That's around 11.5%.

In fact, as a British soldier you were more likely to die during the Crimean War (1853-56) than in WW1.

3. Men lived in the trenches for years on end
Front-line trenches could be a terribly hostile place to live. Often wet, cold and exposed to the enemy, units would quickly lose their morale if they spent too much time in them.

As a result, the British army rotated men in and out continuously. Between battles, a unit spent perhaps 10 days a month in the trench system, and of those, rarely more than three days right up on the front line. It was not unusual to be out of the line for a month.

4. The upper class got off lightly
Although the great majority of casualties in WW1 were from the working class, the social and political elite was hit disproportionately hard by WW1. Their sons provided the junior officers whose job it was to lead the way over the top and expose themselves to the greatest danger as an example to their men.

Some 12% of the British army's ordinary soldiers were killed during the war, compared with 17% of its officers. Eton alone lost more than 1,000 former pupils - 20% of those who served. UK wartime Prime Minister Herbert Asquith lost a son, while future Prime Minister Andrew Bonar Law lost two. Anthony Eden lost two brothers, another brother of his was terribly wounded and an uncle was captured.

5. 'Lions led by donkeys'

British commanders were thrust into a massive industrial struggle unlike anything the Army had ever seen”

This saying was supposed to have come from senior German commanders describing brave British soldiers led by incompetent old toffs from their chateaux. In fact it was made up by historian Alan Clark.

During the war more than 200 generals were killed, wounded or captured. Most visited the front lines every day. In battle they were considerably closer to the action than generals are today.

Naturally, some generals were not up to the job, but others were brilliant, such as Arthur Currie, a middle-class Canadian failed insurance broker and property developer.

Rarely in history have commanders had to adapt to a more radically different technological environment.

British commanders had been trained to fight small colonial wars, now they were thrust into a massive industrial struggle unlike anything the British army had ever seen.

Despite this, within three years the British had effectively invented a method of warfare still recognisable today. By the summer of 1918 the British army was probably at its best ever and it inflicted crushing defeats on the Germans.

6. Gallipoli was fought by Australians and New Zealanders

Far more British soldiers fought on the Gallipoli peninsula than Australians and New Zealanders put together.

The UK lost four or five times as many men in the brutal campaign as her imperial Anzac contingents. The French also lost more men than the Australians.

The Aussies and Kiwis commemorate Gallipoli ardently, and understandably so, as their casualties do represent terrible losses both as a proportion of their forces committed and of their small populations.

7. Tactics on the Western Front remained unchanged despite repeated failure
Never have tactics and technology changed so radically in four years of fighting. It was a time of extraordinary innovation. In 1914 generals on horseback galloped across battlefields as men in cloth caps charged the enemy without the necessary covering fire. Both sides were overwhelmingly armed with rifles. Four years later, steel-helmeted combat teams dashed forward protected by a curtain of artillery shells.

They were now armed with flame throwers, portable machine-guns and grenades fired from rifles. Above, planes, that in 1914 would have appeared unimaginably sophisticated, duelled in the skies, some carrying experimental wireless radio sets, reporting real-time reconnaissance.

Huge artillery pieces fired with pinpoint accuracy - using only aerial photos and maths they could score a hit on the first shot. Tanks had gone from the drawing board to the battlefield in just two years, also changing war forever.

8. No-one won
Swathes of Europe lay wasted, millions were dead or wounded. Survivors lived on with severe mental trauma. The UK was broke. It is odd to talk about winning.

However, in a narrow military sense, the UK and her allies convincingly won. Germany's battleships had been bottled up by the Royal Navy until their crews mutinied rather than make a suicidal attack against the British fleet.

Germany's army collapsed as a series of mighty allied blows scythed through supposedly impregnable defences.

By late September 1918 the German emperor and his military mastermind Erich Ludendorff admitted that there was no hope and Germany must beg for peace. The 11 November Armistice was essentially a German surrender.

Unlike Hitler in 1945, the German government did not insist on a hopeless, pointless struggle until the allies were in Berlin - a decision that saved countless lives, but was seized upon later to claim Germany never really lost.

9. The Versailles Treaty was extremely harsh
The treaty of Versailles confiscated 10% of Germany's territory but left it the largest, richest nation in central Europe.

It was largely unoccupied and financial reparations were linked to its ability to pay, which mostly went unenforced anyway.

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 around 300 years, and home to most of French iron ore production, as well as presenting France with a massive bill for immediate payment.

After WW2 Germany was occupied, split up, her factory machinery smashed or stolen and millions of prisoners forced to stay with their captors and work as slave labourers. Germany lost all the territory it had gained after WW1 and another giant slice on top of that.

Versailles was not harsh but was portrayed as such by Hitler who sought to create a tidal wave of anti-Versailles sentiment on which he could then ride into power.

10. Everyone hated it
Like any war, it all comes down to luck. You may witness unimaginable horrors that leave you mentally and physically incapacitated for life, or you might get away without a scrape. It could be the best of times, or the worst of times.

Many soldiers enjoyed WW1. If they were lucky they would avoid a big offensive, and much of the time, conditions might be better than at home.

For the British there was meat every day - a rare luxury back home - cigarettes, tea and rum, part of a daily diet of over 4,000 calories.

Absentee rates due to sickness, an important barometer of a unit's morale were, remarkably, hardly above peacetime rates. Many young men enjoyed the guaranteed pay, the intense comradeship, the responsibility and a much greater sexual freedom than in peacetime Britain.

Some interesting points raised here. To me, it reads slightly as though Mr Snow is an apologist of the war. Some of the myths i agree though, are simply that - myths. There has been quite a lot of discussion recently about the memory of the war. It seems as though people on both sides are offering their opinions.
 
There are some very weird claims in there that I have never even heard before, so I don't know why someone would even need to debunk them. Add in some twisting of the facts, sometimes giving an answer that doesn't even fit to what the myth is saying and you end up with a rather weird article.

Take no.8. I have never heard anyone suggest that "no one won". Just because some people mention that the cost for victory was extremely high, to the point that having won isn't necessarily worth the price it took to get there, doesn't mean that there wasn't a clear winner. The line about the collaps of the army is utterly hilarious in its overblown propaganda though.

Take no.9 which is pretty much wrong on all accounts. Yes, the treaty was very harsh. From the financial point of view, it was far harsher than WW2, which had very little actual reparations. Losing control over your own country for quite some time is obviously harsher than merely losing some parts and having to pay reparations, but that doesn't mean that the Treaty wasn't very harsh. Financial reparations were not linked to the ability to pay early on, no idea where they did get that one from. Things only were lessened when everything went down the drain. Alsace-Lorraine sure as hell hadn't belonged to France for 300 years, and they don't mention that it belonged to Germany for a very long time, nor that the majority of the citizens where Germans. Acting like Germany took away entirely French lands for no reason at all, while the Frence then merely took back what belonged to them is flat out wrong, and rather disgraceful when you are trying to deliver the truth about myths. The peace of 1871 and the Treaty of Versailles were actually very similar when it comes to considering harsh treaties.
 
Did you notice the extremely Britocentric character of this article ???

===================================================

Regarding point 9. I agree that the Versailles treaty was not harsh. Actually - it was not harsh enough. It should have been harsher.

Apart from being not harsh enough, it was also not respected at all - which is why Germany was able to eventually break all of its original provisions.

Had the Versailles treaty been harsher, or more strictly imposed on Germany, then Germany would have never been able to launch WW2.

Yes, the treaty was very harsh, not as harsh as the end result of WW2, but that doesn't make it "not harsh".

Exactly - the Versailles treaty was not as harsh as the end result of WW2, which means that it was not harsh enough.

Also let's think - for how long was the Versailles treaty even respected? Only until the Treaty of Locarno on 16 October 1925.

So the Versailles treaty was respected by those who imposed it only for 6 years. Later France and Britain simply forgot about it.
 
Take no.9 which is pretty much wrong on all accounts. Yes, the treaty was very harsh.

Versailles wasn't that harsh: It mostly targeted Germany's military capabilities and left the economic wellbeing of the German people relatively unscathed. However, after the signing of the treaty followed several unfortunate events such as the beginning of the great depression, which made the Versailles treaty look bad in the process as well.
 
Antisemitism wasn't big in Germany at the time and actual amount supporters of antisemitic theories was comparable to the amount dedicated Islamophobes today, which is to say not much, even if they may have the support of influential politicians. However, it is mistakenly believed such theories are popular because politicians who support such theories are highly popular as well: However, it must be noted that they are usually popular for entirely different things than preaching hatred against minority groups.

While the Nazi inner circle definitely was antisemitic, many rank-and-file Nazi Party members and most Nazi voters were not antisemitic. The actual amount of Germans that were antisemitic was very slim and the perpetrators of the Holocaust were even more slim. 99% of all atrocities committed by Nazi Germany can be pinpointed to less than 1% of its population. Of course, too many were simply indifferent, which allowed to Holocaust to happen in the first place.
 
many rank-and-file Nazi Party members and most Nazi voters were not antisemitic.

Highly controversial statement. This statement is similar to statements by defenders of the Confederate States of America, who claim that 99% of the Southerners didn't own slaves (which is true, because only rich people could afford slaves) and thus were not racist against Black people.

The second part of the statement (that Southerners were not racist against Black people and that the war was not over slavery) is wrong.

the perpetrators of the Holocaust were even more slim. 99% of all atrocities committed by Nazi Germany can be pinpointed to less than 1% of its population.

Majority of Germany's population was well aware what was hapenning, though. They could also see the starving prisoners of war and the forced laborers as well as the prisoners of camps (the idea that all concentration and death camps were located in occupied territories is another myth).

==================================

BTW - General Lee owned slaves (he liberated them later, because that was the last will of his father-in-law).

At some point he started to oppose slavery.

But the reason for General Lee opposing slavery, was not compassion or something like this.

It was his racism - he considered "free negroes" to be even more dangerous than "negro slaves":

Fragments from interrogation of General Lee on 17 February 1866:

"Questions" = interrogator
"Answers" = Robert E. Lee

index.php


So if slaves had to be liberated, then Lee was supporting the idea that they should leave Virginia.

While he could tolerate the presence of black people as slaves, who could not tolerate free black neighbours.
 
Did you notice the extremely Britocentric character of this article ???

In his defence he's a British author/broadcaster writing an article for a British corporation that will mostly be read by people in the UK, and the article is about debunking what "we" (by which he probably means the British public) think. There was also a bit of a fuss in the UK about the way WW1 is portrayed recently, so it could also in part be considered a reflection of that atmosphere.
 
Highly controversial statement. This statement is similar to statements by defenders of the Confederate States of America, who claim that 99% of the Southerners didn't own slaves (which is true, because only rich people could afford slaves) and thus were not racist against Black people.

The second part of the statement (that Southerners were not racist against Black people and that the war was not over slavery) is wrong.

Well, it is true that the North did not went to war over slavery as the Union was prepared to allow the existence of slavery. Only later, when slavery was economically no longer a factor of importance for the North and abolishing slavery could aid the North against the Confederates. The North went to war over tariffs and economic opportunism in general.

The Confederate apologists simply reversed positions, since the South definitely went to war over slavery and not over the tariff regime of the north. As with denialists of the Armenian genocide and Nazi apologists, they simply stressed the more questionable parts of their historical enemies and recast their story as one of fighting against that particular evil, systematically disregarding atrocities committed by "their side".

Majority of Germany's population was well aware what was hapenning, though.

As I mentioned earlier, indifference was to blame and affected a significant part of the German population. That's still far cry from direct responsibility.
 
Taking the Franco-Prussian reparations and the German Reparations in isolation fundamentally misses the reason why the reparations were so disastrous.

France was free to operate in a world banking system undamaged by the Franco-Prussian war. WWI saw the collapse of British lending power and an unstable France that ended up stockpiling gold, which the U.S. spent most of the twenties trying to convince people was the only money in the world.

The whole system was rigid and fell into default and crisis way too easily, and was therefor harsh out of proportion to the actual cash value of the reparations. Also the idea that Anti-Versaille sentiment was invented by Hitler is absolutely ridiculous.
 
As for the Lions led by Donkeys thing, I agree that the war forced everyone to adapt to radically changing situations. But the war also showed a failure to learn from the mistakes and innovations of others. The British took massive casualties on the Somme that could have been prevented by learning from the French at Verdun. I could likewise point to American failure to learn from the experiences of others when they joined, but the article focused on British commanders so I decided to do the same.
 
I'm not particularly convinced that all of these myths are so generally-accepted as to need this sort of "debunking".

1, 4, 6 and perhaps 9 are probably believed by most Britons. But I don't think anyone believes 2, 3, 7 or 10, or at least not if they paid the slightest attention in school. They emphasis those aspects of the war, perhaps, but I don't think they take them to the extremes Snow imagines.

5 is a tricky one, because as we a while ago it actually represents a sort of mental compromise (borderline-doublethink, frankly) between the belief that war is glorious and that war is tragic. It's a narrative under a lot of tension, so hardly the sort of enduring mythology he wants to grapple with.

8 isn't so much a myth as an interpretation which he happens to disagree with, so simply contradicting doesn't really qualify as "debunking" even by the extremely low bar he's set himself. His other claims are at least open to empirical testing, even if he makes absolutely no effort to support them, but here he's just saying "this is my opinion, which is correct because I am on the BBC and you are not".

So overall, it's pretty weak. He goes for a few long-hanging branches, but then starts inventing branches for himself, and eventually gets so carried away he invents branches he can't reach. But I suppose we shouldn't expect too much from minor television personalities, even those who fancy themselves "historians".
 
As I mentioned earlier, indifference was to blame and affected a significant part of the German population. That's still far cry from direct responsibility.

It doesn't mean that all those who were not directly responsible were not anti-Semites and did not have anti-Semitic and other racist beliefs.

Are you even aware, how many Germans belonged to various Nazi organizations?

According to Jochen Böhler in 1939 at least 31% of all soldiers of the Wehrmacht were (or had been before 1939) members of at least one Nazi paramilitary organization. 1/5 of all Wehrmacht soldiers as of 1939, had been members of Hitlerjugend. 1/7 of them were members of SA. 1/3 of them were members of RAD. Many members of Allgemeine SS also served in the army. For example in 1939 a total of 250,000 enlisted members (without officers) of Allgemeine SS organization served in the Wehrmacht. There were also officers of Allgemeine SS, but they served mostly in Waffen SS (SS-VT), SS Totenkopf and Einsatzgruppen.

I don't need to add how many Germans were members of the NSDAP, its "related parties" or its "children parties".

Racist (including anti-Semitic) beliefs were also pretty common, which is proven by Jochen Böhler and many other historians.

=============================================

Many people were soldiers of the Wehrmacht and members of Nazi paramilitary groups at the same time.

Example is Joachim Meyer-Quade, who was a Leutnant of the Wehrmact, but an SA-Obergruppenführer at the same time:

PIC_2-4453.jpg


And in addition he was also a high-ranking member of the NSDAP:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim_Meyer-Quade

https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=Meyer-Quade&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

His death in battle was then "celebrated" by Nazi Germany:

(...) Im September 1939 beteiligte Meyer-Quade sich im Rang eines Leutnants und Führer eine Infanterieschützenkompanie am Polenfeldzug. Weniger als zwei Wochen nach Kriegsbeginn wurde er bei Kampfhandlungen bei Piatek getötet. Die Nationalsozialisten nahmen den Tod von Meyer-Quade zum Anlass um einen Personenkult zu entfalten. In seiner Heimatstadt wurde ein Platz nach ihm benannt, in Tondern ein HJ-Heim. Im Warthegau, einem westlichen zur baldigen deutschen Besiedelung vorgesehenen Teil des deutsch besetzten Gebietes von Polen wurde eine Abteilung des Reichsarbeitsdienstes nach Meyer-Quade benannt. In Nordfrankreich, in der Nähe von Eperlecques-lez-Watten, wurde ein Lager der Organisation Todt nach ihm benannt.[2] Im Generalgouvernement, dem östlichen Teil des besetzten Polens, wurde die Stadt Kutno nach Meyer-Quade in Quadenstädt umgetauft.[3] (...)

Occupied Kutno was renamed Quadenstädt... :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kutno

Ludwig Fischer, Viktor Lutze and German officers visiting the grave of Meyer-Quade in October 1940:

http://www.audiovis.nac.gov.pl/obraz/13556/

SM0_2-5283.jpg
 
I'm not particularly convinced that all of these myths are so generally-accepted as to need this sort of "debunking".

1, 4, 6 and perhaps 9 are probably believed by most Britons. But I don't think anyone believes 2, 3, 7 or 10, or at least not if they paid the slightest attention in school. They emphasis those aspects of the war, perhaps, but I don't think they take them to the extremes Snow imagines.

Perhaps not, but it did come as a surprise to me to hear that most soldiers enjoyed the war, and that morale seemed to be as good as in peacetime, and that the war wasn't particularly bloody by the standards of the day. Bear in mind that a lot of people, particularly of the demographic that reads BBC News, went to school a fairly long time ago.
 
As for the no one won statement, I think the author is debunking something different than what people meant. I agree with him that the war wasn't a draw and the Entente ended up better than the Central Powers. However, usually what is meant is the cost of the war was so high as to be devastating to all. I didn't see the author address that.

That being said, although I'm being critical, the fact that people were rotated quickly from the front is not something I knew, so I appreciated it. I also liked the attempt to put the casualty numbers in perspective even if, sometimes, total number of casualties does mean something more.
 
As for the no one won statement, I think the author is debunking something different than what people meant. I agree with him that the war wasn't a draw and the Entente ended up better than the Central Powers. However, usually what is meant is the cost of the war was so high as to be devastating to all. I didn't see the author address that.

That being said, although I'm being critical, the fact that people were rotated quickly from the front is not something I knew, so I appreciated it. I also liked the attempt to put the casualty numbers in perspective even if, sometimes, total number of casualties does mean something more.

My impression of the "no-one won" thing, based on his points, is that, in part at least, he's addressing the myth that was more popular in the past - particularly in Germany for obvious reasons - that the Germans didn't really lose (a claim that, I believe, a certain Austrian with a Chaplin-esque 'tache was fond of). That Germany was never beaten, that they could have continued fighting, but the leadership betrayed the German people and surrendered unneccesarily.
 
While the Nazi inner circle definitely was antisemitic, many rank-and-file Nazi Party members and most Nazi voters were not antisemitic. The actual amount of Germans that were antisemitic was very slim and the perpetrators of the Holocaust were even more slim. 99% of all atrocities committed by Nazi Germany can be pinpointed to less than 1% of its population. Of course, too many were simply indifferent, which allowed to Holocaust to happen in the first place.

I also disagree here. I think it comes down to what you deem as "participated in the holocaust". Sure, if you look at the direct participants - the Einsatzgruppen, elements of the SS etc. Then the proportion is rather small. But you could quite easily widen it - clerks, train drivers, train station operators, large industry, the armaments industry, SS soup kitchens, even the Jews themselves (Sonderkommando and Judenrat for example). Looked at in that light the participants were significantly greater.
 
My impression of the "no-one won" thing, based on his points, is that, in part at least, he's addressing the myth that was more popular in the past - particularly in Germany for obvious reasons - that the Germans didn't really lose (a claim that, I believe, a certain Austrian with a Chaplin-esque 'tache was fond of). That Germany was never beaten, that they could have continued fighting, but the leadership betrayed the German people and surrendered unneccesarily.

:agree:
 
I think the point of the article is to make British people feel better about the war.
And nothing short of a bolt-faced-lie was going to stop the author dame it!
To illustrate:
idea that Anti-Versaille sentiment was invented by Hitler is absolutely ridiculous.
Yes this is implied by the wording, but the author doesn't directly say it, does he? He merely says that it "was used by Hitler".
it did come as a surprise to me to hear that most soldiers enjoyed the war
Not even the author made such a bold claim.
And I am not about to even trust the supposed "many".
 
Back
Top Bottom