10 myths about World War One

[Valmy]

This one cracked me up.  France got back the two provinces it lost in the F-P, but when Germany lost them they were "only 10% of their territory" whereas when France lost them they were "two rich French provinces blah blah blah."

They were two beloved and integral provinces of the beloved Patrie.  While Germany considered them Reichsland and never let them be proper parts of the Empire.  Bastards.

The Versailles treaty thing being harsh is a problem of what we mean by harsh here.  It was certainly moderated compared to what it could have been but the Germans felt screwed over for various reasons.  In any case regardless of its harshness it was a pretty badly designed treaty with no effective method of enforcement.

[jimmy olsen]

Are these big myths?

I hear them fairly often.  Well the non-British specific ones anyway.  The 'rich man's war, poor man's fight' is a sentiment I usually hear of the ACW or Vietnam and not WWI or WWII over here.

Weren't tons of young upper class lieutenants and captains gunned down during suicidal fronal assualts?

[Valmy]

Weren't tons of young upper class luietents and captains gunned down during suicidal fronal assualts?

That is what I understood and what the article said.  I have to say I have never heard that one before but I am not over in Blighty listening to what their Commie agitators say.

[Razgovory]

Well this year will be the 100th anniversary of the war.  It's honestly depressing to think about.  Such a beautiful and vibrant world for so little gained.

[Capetan Mihali]

"The First World War was neither first, nor the world, nor a war."

[Neil]

The 100th anniversary of the end of civilzation.  I think I'll celebrate by acquiring and using atomic weapons against China.

[Neil]

Here's a myth about WWI:  That the British operations against German colonies weren't a critical part of the war, and were just an imperial landgrab.

[Admiral Yi]

Here's a myth about WWI:  That the British operations against German colonies weren't a critical part of the war, and were just an imperial landgrab.

The only strategic purpose the colonies served was as coaling stations and wireless transmitters for Germany's cruiser fleet.  Since the cruiser fleet was eliminated in the first few months of the war, the colonies were meaningless.

Verdict: land grab.

[Neil]

What are you talking about?  German cruisers were taking prizes well into the 1915, and the intensity of their operations was very much inhibited by the lack of supply and bases beyond the North Sea.  Quick and effective British action against German colonies was important in preventing the disruption of the global economy.

[Viking]

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 between 2-300 years, and home to most of French iron ore production, as well as presenting France with a massive bill for immediate payment.

This one cracked me up.  France got back the two provinces it lost in the F-P, but when Germany lost them they were "only 10% of their territory" whereas when France lost them they were "two rich French provinces blah blah blah."

Gotta agree with the emerging consensus Jo Jo: this article is crap.

Maybe the strongest contender for actual myth is #9.

Note, Germany did lose West Prussia and Posen as well as Elsass-Lothringen.

In terms of reparations the french reparations after the Franco-Prussian war were harsher than the versailles reparations.

Both countries did suffer violent post war revolts, france even lost paris to rebel scum for a while. The important diffference is the psychological state of the vanquished. France had seen a Prussian army wipe it's forces quickly and march on it's capital. It had obviously lost and it had not totally mobilized in a manner that happened in WWI so there wasn't the same level of emotional ownership in the war itself by the people (fewer people asking why this peace treaty was worth a father/brother/husband/son dying for).

The Ludendorff Offensive and the subsequent surrender certainly affected the german psyche too. You have to remember, that up til the end of july the german people were under the impression that they were finally about to take paris and end the war until 3 months before the end. Hitler missed the whole thing, he got gassed thinking germany was about to win and when he recouperated germany had surrendered. The only similar situation is the Minbari at the Battle of the Line, and that is fiction.

Versailles was emotionally harsh rather than physically harsh. The Germans were humiliated without feeling themselves subdued. It wasn't just that no foreign troops were on german soil, it was that they had been winning, dreaming of annexing belgium, the ukraine and the baltics, and then, all of a sudden they surrender, must accept blame for the war, have to disarm and stay disarmed and have large chunks of their country given to others. France wished to impose physical terms as harsh as the emotional ones, going as far as to advocating a dismantling of germany.


As for the myths, they are myths in theBlackadder sense.  Gove is a reactionary twit of gigantic proportions, but world war one is very much a war of myths. Most of the myths on Snows list are myths held by those with a passing knowledge of the era. 

[Admiral Yi]

In terms of reparations the french reparations after the Franco-Prussian war were harsher than the versailles reparations.

In absolute or relative terms?

[viper37]

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 between 2-300 years, and home to most of French iron ore production, as well as presenting France with a massive bill for immediate payment.

This one cracked me up.  France got back the two provinces it lost in the F-P, but when Germany lost them they were "only 10% of their territory" whereas when France lost them they were "two rich French provinces blah blah blah."

Gotta agree with the emerging consensus Jo Jo: this article is crap.

Maybe the strongest contender for actual myth is #9.

It's in proportion to the total economy.  It severly affected France, and it had been part of France of 2-300 years.  Whereas in 1918, it had been German for less than 50 years.  And for Germany, it was a small part of their GDP, for France it was big, if we trust the article.

[Neil]

Then again, you could also say that Elsass-Lothringen had been a part of Germany for as long as there had been a Germany.

[Viking]

In terms of reparations the french reparations after the Franco-Prussian war were harsher than the versailles reparations.

In absolute or relative terms?

In relative terms. There is no comparison between an 1870s economy and a 1910s economy. Especially with the artificial inflation due to WWI.

The sums were 5 Billion gold francs vs 50 billion gold marks (exchange rate about 1.1 -  1), The german economy being many times larger than the french economy and 45 years of economic development later mean the french still had to pay a larger proportion. Another difference that must be added is that in 1871 france still had unliquidated capital reserves, something 1918 germany did not have. Actual payments may have reached as high as 20 billion gold marks when hitler cancelled the bonds in 1933.

[Admiral Yi]

Kay.

It still doesn't follow that Versailles was "not harsh."

Yes it does!

I meant Versailles was harsh.