10 myths about World War One

[Valmy]

The occupation of the Rhineland was pretty harsh. IIRC it was sine die until the Hague Conference reduced reparations and the Allies left, and then Germany wasn't allowed to man its own western border until it remilitarized it unilaterally.

Ultimately the Versailles arrangement was untennable. The "appeasement" was imho an acceptance of how bad Versailles was and an (ultimately misguided) effort to reach a workable arrangement without resorting to yet another war, as it ultimately happened.

The occupation of the Rhineland part of the Armistice and not the treaty.

Versailles was a bad and untenable treaty.  That is true.  But that is a separate issue from its harshness.

I don't see how giving Germany Czechoslovakia was acceptance of that though.  That was more of an acceptance of the fact Germany was strong and they were weak.

[CountDeMoney]

Versailles revisionists need to floss my ass hair.

[The Brain]

WW1 is way too important to the psyche of too many people for any real mythbusting.

[celedhring]

The occupation of the Rhineland was pretty harsh. IIRC it was sine die until the Hague Conference reduced reparations and the Allies left, and then Germany wasn't allowed to man its own western border until it remilitarized it unilaterally.

Ultimately the Versailles arrangement was untennable. The "appeasement" was imho an acceptance of how bad Versailles was and an (ultimately misguided) effort to reach a workable arrangement without resorting to yet another war, as it ultimately happened.

The occupation of the Rhineland part of the Armistice and not the treaty.

Versailles was a bad and untenable treaty.  That is true.  But that is a separate issue from its harshness.

I don't see how giving Germany Czechoslovakia was acceptance of that though.  That was more of an acceptance of the fact Germany was strong and they were weak.

That was later, and yes, that was cowardice. But stuff like reducing the reparations, sitting out as Germany occupied the Rhineland, even the Anschlüss (as it was portrayed as a sovereign decision of the Austrians, not too dissimilar to the votes that dismembered the A-H empire) were "reasonable". The problem was, imho, that Eden and Co never recognized that they were offering sincere concessions to an insincere negotiatior.

[Admiral Yi]

Wot's all this about commie agitators?

[Agelastus]

I wasn't aware of the trenches thing myself. I mean, I knew that they didn't spend months and months in them like it seems in the movies, but not as little as 10 days per month as the article says. And I am pretty sure that coming from the depiction in films and TV, most people do believe this myth.

My understanding is that the British were particularly keen on giving their soldiers breaks from the front line, it was tougher for the French and abysmal (surprise, surprise) for the Russian troops.

I would imagine that this is also related to the relative levels of activity on the front lines. The British Army, as far as I am aware, was much more active at the small unit scale than the French and Russian armies outside of major offensives (trench raids, surprise bombardments, patrols into no-man's land etc.)

If you're active in that fashion you're going to need pulling out more often for R & R and for training.

[Drakken]

Odd (or not odd at all) that this "paper" leaves out the greatest WW1 myth of all, that Germany and Kaiser Wilhelm are the sole guilty party responsible for the outbreak of the war.

Why am I not surprised?

[Drakken]

I wasn't aware of the trenches thing myself. I mean, I knew that they didn't spend months and months in them like it seems in the movies, but not as little as 10 days per month as the article says. And I am pretty sure that coming from the depiction in films and TV, most people do believe this myth.

What this "paper" omit is that what we conceive as "hell in the trenches" was throughly exact, but mostly for the French. One of the big reasons many elements of the French Army mutinied in 1917 was that the same units were sent over and over again over the top for incomprehensible objectives and that common troops were given no leave nor any break from the frontline by being sent back in support lines. Any who dared to complain was officially deemed - and treated as - a coward.

Britain couldn't afford to treat its Pals' troops like cannon fodder; the French could.

It took Petain's nomination after the munities to help calm the situation, with a few executions here and there pour l'exemple. He was smart enough to recognize treating their soldiers as if they were already dead was stupid, and he recommended a system of rotations for frontline units, and leaves for soldiers.

[Darth Wagtaros]

I wasn't aware of the trenches thing myself. I mean, I knew that they didn't spend months and months in them like it seems in the movies, but not as little as 10 days per month as the article says. And I am pretty sure that coming from the depiction in films and TV, most people do believe this myth.

My understanding is that the British were particularly keen on giving their soldiers breaks from the front line, it was tougher for the French and abysmal (surprise, surprise) for the Russian troops.

I would imagine that this is also related to the relative levels of activity on the front lines. The British Army, as far as I am aware, was much more active at the small unit scale than the French and Russian armies outside of major offensives (trench raids, surprise bombardments, patrols into no-man's land etc.)

If you're active in that fashion you're going to need pulling out more often for R & R and for training.

I didn't think the Russians lasted long enough to get into trench warfare.  After Tannenberg I mean.

[Drakken]

I didn't think the Russians lasted long enough to get into trench warfare.  After Tannenberg I mean.

Two words : Brusilov Offensive. Russia effectively broke the Austrian-Hungarian Army's arms and legs in 1916, and heavily contributed to Germany ending the push on Verdun as well.

IIRC wasn't there some kind of proto-trench warfare in place against the Austrians?

[Admiral Yi]

I didn't think the Russians lasted long enough to get into trench warfare.  After Tannenberg I mean.

Everybody dug trenches as a matter of course.  You couldn't survive long in WWI without them.  The Eastern Front was just a lot more fluid than the Western.

The Germans first tested and perfected their strosstruppen tactics on the Eastern Front.

[Valmy]

Odd (or not odd at all) that this "paper" leaves out the greatest WW1 myth of all, that Germany and Kaiser Wilhelm are the sole guilty party responsible for the outbreak of the war.

Why am I not surprised?

How is that a myth?  I don't think anybody believes that.  After all the war broke out primarily due to the Austria-Hungary and Russia rivalry in the Balkans and all the difficulties that came with that.  Certain very scholarly historians hold Germany primarily responsible, and make good points, but even then they do not claim they are solely responsible.  'Guilty' is a weird concept in this case anyway.  Like trying to figure out who is guilty of the Punic Wars or something.

[Valmy]

I didn't think the Russians lasted long enough to get into trench warfare.  After Tannenberg I mean.

Erm...huh?  Tannenberg was the first major battle in a conflict that lasted over three years.

[Josephus]

Well, the Germans were forced to speak English with an accent in most movies after Versailles.  Plus, the whole lederhosen as a national identity thing was pretty unbearable.

Little known point 15. Germany had to start importing French beer. That, in and of itself, was harsh.

[celedhring]

Odd (or not odd at all) that this "paper" leaves out the greatest WW1 myth of all, that Germany and Kaiser Wilhelm are the sole guilty party responsible for the outbreak of the war.

Why am I not surprised?

How is that a myth?  I don't think anybody believes that.  After all the war broke out primarily due to the Austria-Hungary and Russia rivalry in the Balkans and all the difficulties that came with that.  Certain very scholarly historians hold Germany primarily responsible, and make good points, but even then they do not claim they are solely responsible.  'Guilty' is a weird concept in this case anyway.  Like trying to figure out who is guilty of the Punic Wars or something.

That might be the case in a place like this, but I bet that if you were to ask around - even in a country that was neutral in the conflict - most people would say that Germans were the bad guys, even if it's just WWII bleeding into the concept most people have of pre-1946 Germany.

I'm of the opinion that most Great Powers were looking for a good rumble, even if the Balkan situation had been defused we would have got a WWI at a later stage.