Question to Brits: which world war was a bigger trauma?

[Valmy]

Did the three partitioning powers all draft Poles into their armies?

Yes.

Austria went one further and recruited a volunteer 'Kingdom of Poland' army as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Legions_in_World_War_I

[grumbler]

Yeah it was not bordering genocide or anything but I was not aware losses on that scale were not even considered signficant.

In part, that is just passive voice biting you in the ass, as it usually does.  Significance is in the eye of the beholder.  The beholder in this case is the post-WW2 Pole.

[grumbler]

How big was the population of Poland at the time? 30 millionish?

620k is 2%, that would be normally a devastating loss, but compared to what happened to Poland in World War Two I can see how it would considered paltry.

Poland had a pop over 30 million, but probably only 20-22 million were actually poles.  620k is probably closer to 3% than 2% of the actual Poles.

[Valmy]

In part, that is just passive voice biting you in the ass, as it usually does.  Significance is in the eye of the beholder.  The beholder in this case is the post-WW2 Pole.

I just thought his statement meant he was ignorant of what actually happened in WWI in Poland rather than actually claiming hundreds of thousands was not not significant.

[Neil]

The really traumatic thing about the Great War is that the clash of battlefleets didn't produce a decisive result.

[Razgovory]

How big was the population of Poland at the time? 30 millionish?

620k is 2%, that would be normally a devastating loss, but compared to what happened to Poland in World War Two I can see how it would considered paltry.

Poland had a pop over 30 million, but probably only 20-22 million were actually poles.  620k is probably closer to 3% than 2% of the actual Poles.

Yes but your number only takes into consideration people who were living in boundaries of modern Poland, not what Poland was in 1919.  If anything the number would fall even heavier on ethnic Poles since the larger borders of the Republic of Poland contained large numbers of Ukrainians, Lithuanians and Belorussians.

Just goes to show you, don't side with Marty.

[grumbler]

I just thought his statement meant he was ignorant of what actually happened in WWI in Poland rather than actually claiming hundreds of thousands was not not significant.

  People are ignorant of most insignificant things.  There is no disconnect between being ignorant of something and it not being significant; in general, there is a direct correlation.

[Valmy]

I just thought his statement meant he was ignorant of what actually happened in WWI in Poland rather than actually claiming hundreds of thousands was not not significant.

  People are ignorant of most insignificant things.  There is no disconnect between being ignorant of something and it not being significant; in general, there is a direct correlation.

I thought I was being pretty clear there.  I was trying to I don't think he meant that he just didn't care personally (or even that Poles in general don't care) about the number of people killed.  Rather that I thought he was under the mistaken impression that the number of Poles who died was a great deal smaller than what actually occured.  I get that the war does not resonate very much in modern Poland though, I would be surprised if it did after WWII.

[grumbler]

I thought I was being pretty clear there.  I was trying to I don't think he meant that he just didn't care personally (or even that Poles in general don't care) about the number of people killed.  Rather that I thought he was under the mistaken impression that the number of Poles who died was a great deal smaller than what actually occured.  I get that the war does not resonate very much in modern Poland though, I would be surprised if it did after WWII. 

I understand what you are saying, but am simply pointing out that what is significant is highly conditional, and that marti saying that the losses of WW1 are not significant says nothing about whether it should be significant, which is where I think your "under the mistaken impression that the number of Poles who died was a great deal smaller than what actually occured" comment leads. If those losses don't register as "significant" today, then they probably weren't "traumatic" (to go back to the language of the original idea).

[garbon]

[PJL]

Once again a topic gets hijacked by the pedantic semantic crowd...

[sbr]

Is one a crowd?

[PJL]

Is one a crowd?

I was thinking 3, but I'm struggling to find that many....

[grumbler]

Once again a topic gets hijacked by the pedantic semantic crowd... 

Once again, the peanut gallery shows why it adds no value to a conversation by whining...

[Richard Hakluyt]

I'm with grumbler on this one. The original question asked "which world war was the bigger trauma", it is not really about facts but a country's state of mind. Poland regained its independence in WW1 so the national memory converts it into a triumph rather than a tragedy; also, given that WW2 was so much worse for them, most tragic elements in their WW1 story will have been expunged by the far greater and later tragedy.