10 Big Myths of World War One
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 05. 2024
- World War One is often seen as a pointless, bloody conflict with no lasting peace. Incompetent Generals sent their men to their deaths, using outdated tactics and never using new technology to innovate. But how much of this is true?
Dan Snow explores 10 of the biggest myths that surround one of the bloodiest wars in history.
We're offering a special discount to History Hit for our subscribers, get 50% off your first 3 months with code CZcams: www.access.historyhit.com/
#historyhit #worldwarone #myths
00:00 Introduction
01:03 Myth 1: It Was History's Bloodiest War
02:55 Myth 2: Most Troops Were Killed
04:52 Myth 3: The Rich Commanded, The Poor Died
07:52 Myth 4: It Was All Fought in France & Belgium
09:59 Myth 5: They Were Lions Led By Donkeys
13:09 Myth 6: Men Were Stuck in the Trenches
14:24 Myth 7: Nothing Changed
16:30 Myth 8: Everyone Who Fought, Hated It
18:39 Myth 9: No One Won
21:17 Myth 10: The Treaty of Versailles Was Too Harsh
24:08 Conclusion
I think the most prevalent myth of WWI is equating the entirety of the war to battles like The Somme and Verdun. It was an endlessly fascinating war for many reasons, of course the worst parts stand out and seize the perception of the whole thing.
There is a great book I recommend called "The Myth of the Great War" by John Mosier
What?
What are the "best" parts?
@@ji8044 the Christmas day soccer games and gifts exchanges. That's probably about it.
The French learned from Verdun at least. The British learned very little from the Somme. There were smaller version of the Somme right through till the final close of Third Ypres. The blundering idiocy and complete failure to grasp the reality on the ground that bedevilled the Somme was present in spades at Passchendaele. Haig's staff berated a colonel who told them what the reality was. It is one thing to protect the life of senior commanders, but they were out of touch. Haig's HQ was closer in a straight line to Dover than to Ypres. Yes there are myths and I think this video has added a couple.
@@stringpicker5468 Haig was in command of the whole BEF, not just that part of it that was in the Ypres salient. The location of his HQ closer to England - and thus to the civil oversight of the war - was and is entirely justified. And if you look at the makeup of tactical units - from the rifle platoon upwards - you'll see that throughout his time in command, equipment and small unit tactics were in constant evolution.
On the issue of deaths, though, WW1 only lasted 4 years. The Taiping rebellion lasted more than 3 times as long, and a far greater proportion of those deaths resulted from the massacre of noncombatants, ethnic cleansing, disease and famine. The Napoleonic and revolutionary wars lasted almost 6 times as long, and once again, deaths other than in combat(or by enemy action) would have been a much larger factor than in WW1.
Most soldiers died in 1914 per time.
Also bloodiest doesn't just mean total deaths
@@MrGoldenV Overall I so think that WWI was the worst for the psyche for the induvidual soldier on the Westfront. Somme and Verdun have less deaths than Stalingrad. The devastation per m^2 was probably worst at Verdun, the spend 64 million 64.000.000 artillery shells for about 600.000 dead. Stalingrad on the other hand had less wrecked souls, Well for the Germany at least because barely anyone survived.
The difference to their historic counterparts is mostly how much death was concentrated on a small amount of land. Those battles didnt just take days they took months, they were sieges. With all the misery attached to that.
But its Chinese, no one in the West took them seriously or treated them as human beings at that time.
true but also so wrong. at the time the world population was way lower and in percent way more died.in fact many conflicts in history were bloodier if you put it into perspective. f.e. caesar killed 1mio and enslaved another million in gaul which was about 2/3 of the area. as you pointed out in ww1 most of the nation didnt fight the people but the armies. serbia lost in fact the highest % of the population in ww1. in ww2 germany, usa, uk, japan, china, soviets all fought a war against the civil population thats why so many died. but it still isnt the bloodiest conflict in %. (a few rebellions in china, gengis khan, 30years war, spain in southamerica and so on)
Interesting what you say about veterans enjoying the war. My great uncle who served in the RAF in bomber command as a navigator told me that his wartime years were the best in his life. When I asked him to expand on this, he told me that he and his comrades lived for the moment, that the cameraderie you mentioned were central to the experience. He said that peace time worries like mortgages, cash flow, health, relationships etc simply did not feature. He told me that yes, you’d come back from a raid and whole bomber crews would be missing from the mess hall, but you simply didn’t dwell on it. BTW He is now dead but before he passed he gave me his self published book “My War” which is quite simply one of the most exciting, adventure filled war books I have ever read!
No disrespect intended....but I'm getting an extrovert vibe here. I bet those on the extrovert spectrum were really energized by the group vibe and constant group-level interaction. Back home, if rural or small-town, it may have been a lonely, insular existence and brutal for a true extrovert.
Your uncle sounds like an A grade bullshit artist. Was probably a coward like that seal dork who ran away and hid in Afghanistan while all his teammates were getting killed. Then he writes a book and movie about the bullshit he made up. How many hundreds of planes did your Uncle shoot down ?
Both my grandfather's served in WW2. They never said shit about it.
lies
@@jayp6888😅😅
Maybe rose tinted glasses?
World War One was a horrific war especially for the soldiers. Artillery, machine guns, poison gas, flamethrowers, tanks, airplanes, trenches full of water and rats. Sometimes soldiers would fall into a shell hole that was full of mud and literally be swallowed by the earth. It was beyond hell on earth. Soldiers would go mad and be sent back to the front lines. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the soldiers who fought in WW1. Soldiers went "over the top" to certain death and finally the pandemic of 1918.
I agree, all wars are horrific however WW1 due to technology and tactics is just crazy
If you haven't seen 1917 film... watch it. Filmed like its done in one long scene. Genius how its done.
War horse isn't bad too
@@eddiebear34 I think the gimmick gives away when they obviously cut or when it is just jarring.
@johnnotrealname8168 you can find loads of cuts if that's what you are concentrating on finding. There's one cut they didn't/couldn't hide, and that's when he was passed out and woke up again. Other than that, it's all seamlessly done. Alot of effort in it and it paid off
@@eddiebear34 No, the camera does a turn and goes all janky, cut. That or it is bad cinematography. Also it is not a good style in my view. Cutting is much better.
Not to split hairs but 1792 - 1815 is 22 years WW1 lasted about 4 years, I don’t think thats much of a comparison. Napoleon’s attrition was about 68,000 per year where as the french lost about 350,000 per year in WW1.
Just off those figures I’d say WW1 was a bloodier time than any other.
That's not really splitting hairs. He did a terrible job at "debunking" some of these.
You are splitting hairs, as comparisons like these are quite pointless.
Napoleonic wars (plural !) there were no machine guns and massive artillery.
100 years war was not 100 years of war.
Little Boy and Fat Man killed 200k people in a minute.
Death by bullet is less bloody than death by bayonet.
As mentioned, disease, hunger & hardships killed more than direct violence.
Civilians don't end up in the statistics.
Statistics are now 100x more accurate than 1100 BC, the siege of Troy.
In Ruanda 1 million died in a few weeks, BY MACHETE ! but, officially it was not a war...
Should I continue?
im quite agree with you! i think in term of intensity WW1 was worst than Napoleonic wars ! but the french losses of Napoleonic and revolutions wars are underestimated some Généalogists and historians think in fact it , the losses could be multiply by two the fact is after the Napoleonic wars ,France Natality fell dramatically and never recovered the natality leadership in Europe !
The English Civil Wars were worse than WWI. But the 30 Years War was worse than that as it de-populated most of Germany for decades.
@@ericdane7769 Isn't that the point though ?... the 1st world war was the first, ( or second including the American Civil War), "industrial" war. The machine guns and artillery are exactly why the comparisons are valid and why they resulted in such massive casualties in such short spaces of time.
Regarding casualty rates, one thing you left out is that most deaths in WWI were combat related whereas in all those earlier wars, most of the deaths came from disease. The Boer war was the first conflict in history where, thanks to advances in military medicine, more soldiers died of wounds than disease.
Spanish Flu says hello!
Postwar. @@IndianaSmallmouth
Did you watch the video? He addressed this issue directly.
I don't understand why you would rush to leave a comment like this. Was this an attempt at one-upmanship?
What is more baffling to me is that in Russia , after the already disastrous WW1 , the Russian Civil War (1917-1923) cost a gruesome 9-12 mln casualties !! Almost as much as WW1 total ... 😵💫
6:40 I find it incredibly ironic you mention Churchill supposedly "never ducking in combat" in a "Myths of WW1" video when this is almost certianly post war mythos created to boost his image.
Citations?
THANK , YOU !!!
I can't say specifically about Churchill, but the myth "British officers never duck" is one that has been used to explain their high casualty rates
To be fair, WW1 was documented far better than the other historic wars you mentioned - people have been able to connect with it better because of this, and as such, it sticks in the mind as one of the worst events in human history
Truly accurate documentation of the Second World War is almost unheard of…
You actually put that really well. I feel the same but was battling to find the words. I hear all of his comments and they are fair. But the FWW just affects me in a very personal way (without diminishing any other wars or even the horrific wars taking place today). It might be because I have a son. He is a piper, and I have watched stories about how pipers were used to pump up the troops, and also that the Germans took them out as soon as possible to affect morale. Anyway, all wars suck 💔
The first myth should be put into a timeline! In just 4 years compared to some 30 years war? Of course there might be more deaths in a longer period! I think all those examples of conflicts lasted longer than WW1.
Im not hating, just saying, I came here for answers not to find something to google.
It's CZcams. It's called History Hit, not History Class. It's short 22 minute shorts for entertainment and to win clicks. Enjoy. If you want facts, read a book or take a class.
@@soulscanner66 get out of bed the wrong side, did we?
Australia had 331,000 combat troops in WW1 213,000 became casualties (more than 2 thirds) of which 54,000 died. We lost about 5500 in one night at Fromelles of which 2000 died.
In contrast we had a total of 39,656 casualties in WW2 and only just over 500 in the ten years we were in vietnam.
So yeah WW1 was the bloodiest period in Australian history.
My grandfather was in the 31st Battalion of the 5th Division. He went over the top at Fromelles, on the left flank. I wrote his history in the war for the family. Well, my dad. I told my father more of what he did in the war then his father told him. Shot and gassed at Villiers-Breteneux, he died in 1957. The last ten years of his life he was an invalid, his lungs destroyed by gas. When ANZAC Day came around Granny would lock the door to the big radio they had so there would be no talk of the war. Sold his medals for scrap during the Depression.
If you get a chance and are interested, look for the writings of Charles Bean. The most comprehensive history on war ever written. 16 volumes, I think.
And then they lost a war to flightless birds
@@swapsplatyeah we're still knee deep in Emu's. Never ends..
@@colinr1960 thanks mate I’ll try and get my hands on some of his writings.
Go Aussies
One of my great-grandfathers fought in WWI. He told me about his time in that war when i was rather young, and he was rather old. He fought for Germany, and was present for the Christmas Truce.
This is not a very good thesis, there has undoubtedly been a great deal of drivel written about WW1 , but here is a fact for Mr Snow, In 1914 the British expeditionary force was 100 thousand men, and considered to be the best army Britain ever sent abroad, highly professional, it had grown over years of service in the worlds largest ever empire. The marksmanship alone was extraordinary, the German army by contrast was large but amateur by comparison. But standing up to the hugely bigger German army came at a massive cost. Of the 100 thousand men, professionals, reservists, and Territorials, who arrived in mid to late 1914, 90% were killed or injured by Christmas. Just consider that Mr Snow.
Rather amazingly one of them was my grandfather who survived, but he went to a social gathering in Scotland just before the war started, only he and one other man came home. He never went to a remembrance service.
Both of my grandfathers survived WW1 in the same battalion without knowing each other, apart from a brief meeting near the end of the conflict.
My father had a worse time in WW2 in comparrison.
Conditions were almost exclusively worse in World War 1
How about you?
@@toadtheparakeet8541 yes but not when you’re shot down in a Lancaster full of bombs on the way to target, then the port inner blows up and the pilot orders crew to jump.
Luckily for dad, the RAAF uniform was the same colour as the German soldier’s uniform. It saved his arse at 3am one morning somewhere in France
@@rafflesxyz4800 i’m doing much better thanks to my forefathers
You fool that's based on perspective and situation and what you were told..? Please start with in my opinion or state actual facts of why?
16:32 This is a strange and slightly controversial topic for people who have never experienced it. Other than the out-of-combat examples you mentioned, many people also 'enjoyed' war for the pure simplicity of it. You only had one job and not much else to worry about it. Civilian life is so incredibly complicated by comparison. Which is probably why some veterans struggled after their service. Imagine having enlisted at 16/17. In many ways, it's all you know...
It was however bloodier for Britain and France than WW2 was.
Statistics aside, WWI was no picnic and I think that the image that was attached to it was that the news of the fighting was much more complete and accessible to the public in a more timely manner and the public was shocked and appalled.
Ikr?! And some entities like this one, wish to downplay the misery & death brought on by the Spanish Flu! Ironic, ain't it, that we have a war with Ukraine / Russia & Israel/ Hamas/ innocent Palestinians! War is a sin & unfortunately, sometimes , a necessary one! World War ain't nothing but mass "Genocide ", on a global scale! 😢 And during all of these terrible engagements, we have Covid! Not much difference between now & what happened in WW1! 😕
The press was under census, they only published propaganda. Only and first press to even talk about Influenza and reported about the War without censorship was the Spanish Press because Spain was neutral and not a belligerent.
You’re implying that media could accurately depict how awful war is in a clean way with no filters. Besides, life in general was harsher then. Disease, famine, social stratification, the latter of which was destroyed after ww1.
Thank you for pissing on the graves of the millions. A true master of the art of trivialization!
I recall a story about my father's captain in Vietnam who absolutely LOVED combat. This was the 25th infantry division in 67-68 which was one of the hottest areas during the peak of the war, so skirmishes and battles were relatively common. I was told this captain was extremely competent and had the confidence of his men. Though bold, he didn't throw the lives of his men away needlessly. Nonetheless, when the bullets or mortars began to sound, he would get almost joyful. I think he survived the war but I wonder what his psychological profile was like after that.
Theyre called Psychopaths, they thrive in war.
just as those yanks murdering civilians..
@@frawgeatfrawgworld A psychopath wouldn't have cared about his men's lives like the person said.
A psychopath does well to entertain those around them that help them so far as it attains their goals. What good would it do to let his men die if it meant losing in combat? Thats like saying a psychopath wouldn't functionally be able to take care of having a wife or family - when the fact is a vast proportion of serial killers were family husbands and fathers. They dont kill those around them because it doesnt benefit them, rather the opposite as they are supported. Or the countless seral killers who had mothers they adored. There are innumerable examples, some of the worst most prolific sadistic serial killers were fathers, husbands and even loved their families.@@mrquirky3626
Just posted above that my brother enlisted in the Army, and served in Company C, 4th Battalion (Mechanized), 23rd Infantry Regiment, 25th Infantry Division. Base camp was at Cu Chi, Vietnam. He was there from April 1966 to March 1967. Looks like my brother was there the year before.
I fully agree with Dan on the simplistic narrative of war and im glad he talkes about it here! It is often portrayed in modern media...to a generation who has never had to endure it...as senseless slaughter, old men sending young men off to die for nothing. As if nations and their leaders make such decisions of national importance so lightly.
But of course history is not so black and white and simplistic narratives like that could and should never be considered historical fact.
There is a reason people enlist and choose to serve, and serve proudly. Military service is seen in high regard in many parts of the world, it is a rich tradition that is carried on in many families. And the people who choose to serve a purpose greater than themselves deserve the highest level of respect for they are the epitomy of the human capacity for selflessness and camraderie. The understanding that there are greater things in this world than yourself is what makes these people the best there is to offer.
Not all war is pointless, not all suffering meaningless.
As with everything in this world there is both tragedy and triumph, suffering and joy, good and bad. Thus is the dichotomy of the human endeavor. And will be throughout all of the long chapters of human history.
Thus it is important than we shouldn't stain our view of any particular moment in history with one or the other, but see it as any great story should be seen as...a great drama, with it's own unique stories, its own people and characters, their follies, their flaws, their shortcomings, their tragedies...but also their victories, their sacrifices, their bravery, their heroism and their dedication to their fellow men...thus is the age old tale of war and peace. It is as much a part of the human experience as any other and I believe we should give it the respect and care it deserves in teaching us the lessons it has to offer.
Also there’s this narrative pushed by people that the first world war was mostly forced upon working class youths who were blind to the horrors of the world. This glosses over older veteran soldiers who know the fact that peacetime life was already hard enough, and if you were living in a colonised nation, then life was even harder than in war. They also push the idea that the soliders were forced to kill and didnt want to be there, and that they don’t harbor any resentment towards the enemy. This blatantly overlooks the men who did infact harbor hatred towards the enemy and not without real reasons (talk to any belgian or serbian about the central powers in a positive light and they will punch your face for sure!)
WWI is an example, especially at the beginning, of new technology colliding with old strategy. Machine gun, tanks, vast artillery, and even planes changed the battlefield and forced leaders at all levels to adapt or die. There have been other conflicts in history that demonstrate this principle.
It's a great example of the impact of technology maturing. The internal combustion engine had become something that was widely available, reliable and affordable and it changed everything. Several other technologies (ex: radar and other electronics like radios and artillery fuzes) had a big impact, but none as big as internal combustion engines.
Yes. Simultaneously the last "old" war, and the first "new".
Lions led by Donkeys, one word: Gallipoli. What a major cock up.
What about mesopotamia.
@@patrickporter1864 that's one I'm not familiar with the association.
A French Division in 1914 needed 140 tons of supplies and could need up to a full day to get ready to march. By 1918 they required 1800 tons of supplies and could be on a train in three hours. By removing certain levels the Divisions become easier to manage and are more responsive to a changing battlefield. A Division went from rifles and 24 machineguns to 108 machineguns and gain 116 light machineguns, 18 81mm mortars, 9 37mm trench guns, and 45 rifle grenade launchers. In addition to 36 75mm quick fire guns they gain an extra 12 155mm heavy guns.
They would bombard the enemy with a box barrage of mixed HE, Sharpnel and gas to keep the defenders in and the enemy out. The various trench lines would be hit by drum fire, moving randomly so as to confuse the enemy until the infantry is upon them, meanwhile the infantry advances behind a creeping barrage and the attack is done in echelons so that immediately following the first wave, a second wave moves forward so that the attack does not lose momentum. If the enemy resistance they can call in the next echelon or fall back on the previous one to hold their positions.
A huge investment is made in telephones, radio and streamlining units and command to make them easier to respond to a changing battlefield.
Yep, the composition of army in 1914 was so different the same army in 1918. It's easy to forget how it all changed pretty quickly.
The" lions led by donkeys" statement was not in proper context here and is not an attack on British generalship in general terms but referred to men like supreme commander Haig who continued to poor thousands of infantry into well fortified German lines over and over again, uselessly mauling is own soldiers as he was unable to adapt to modern war and tactics.
Well he said it was made up either way so…
Sorry, but the comment was an attack on British generalship in general terms. It was to describe the utter lack of regard for the lives of the lower ranked field officers and their men ...as a reminder the comment was supposedly spoken when French was supreme commander...the fact that Haig was was more competent than French speaks volumes
"Let debunk myths."
"Famously never ducked when a bullet passed with a crack."..... Right.
I doubt he didn't duck, he wasn't stupid, but he was pretty gung ho. A bit of a nutter when it came to his own safety. He wanted to go in with the troops on D-Day for instance.
His exploits as a younger man were pretty crazy. Whatever you fault him on (and there is plenty) you can't say he didn't have guts. In fact, it was that aspect of him that made him unpopular amongst many. Also, from what I've read, the troops under him in WW1 liked and respected him.
Thanks a lot, Dan, for this one. I was pleased by your mention of General Currie. He was held in high regard for his abilities at home, despite our disproportionate casualties in some of the battles. The old folks always used him as a benchmark when discussing the second war when i was a kid. And, more generally, i really enjoy your efforts. keep up the good work.
The conflicts and wars that he mentioned regarding the first myth lasted a lot longer than WW1. It would be more interesting to compare the amount of people that died per year
Very impressed with this one. Like many others I've been frustrated by the widespread acceptance of the "Lions led by Donkeys" slander, even though more books are arriving which give a far more balanced view of the armies of the war. Dan produces a lot of good stuff, I've got his book Death or Victory, which should be required reading for a now largely forgotten, world-shaping event in the British conquest of Quebec. He also deserves all the praise in the world for bringing history alive for younger generations. To be fair I've sometimes been quite unimpressed at Dan's content when he is too quick to embrace a popular myth or the latest fashionable social media zeitgeist so I was bracing myself for this video to join in the character assassination of Haig, parrot the nonsense Easterner strategy pushed by Lloyd George and Churchill and puff up the all-powerful German army...but he absolutely nailed this one. Fair, balanced, called out the incompetence and inexperience but gave long overdue credit where it is due. Nicely done.
Whenever given the opportunity to write argumentative essays regarding events/technology/tactics of WWI for my Army officer courses, I always went headfirst into them. Thank you for this informative video.
A great review and assessment. I think one of the biggest issues with the term bloodiest is it is subjectivity. One can define this many different Ways and you can use of variety of statistics to prove your point. There are so many different things to consider. The population of the involved countries of the world at the time , the number of combatants involved, the length of the conflict all can be part of the equation. Civil wars are always bloody since both sides' casualties count to that nation's wounded and dead
Thanks Dan, I particularly appreciate the information on the British trench rotation.
Very interesting, and the recognition of Monash employing new tactics was appreciated
A Myth is Ww1 is the first mechanised war. All combatants used horses and other draught animals extensively, with millions of horses employed in every theatre, far more than any tractor, truck or other machine
Australia and new Zealand experienced extreemly heavy casualties in comparison to population size and serving soldiers, generally britan France and us are seen as the highest %
Fought the Apaches on the great plains? That's an historic gaff. The Apache wars were fought in the mountains and desert. They WERE NOT a plains tribe, that was the Sioux and Comanche
Lakota too
They also forgot about the Spanish American War...
I have 2 albums of pictures taken of the war in East Africa. A great great uncle was a Lieutenant, later Captain in the Kings African Rifles. A historian and collector of artefacts of the war there said the pictures are unusual, because some of the native soldiers are named. He owned some of these men’s medals but didn’t know what they looked like.
Apart from coming from a relatively humble background. His family and almost certainly his attitudes were a product of his time. They were all in service or worked for the Bowes Lyon’s family at Glamis. One of his brothers was a dispatch rider for the Machine Gun Corps. I have his spurs, with the gouges replaced with small French coins. He was a groom before and after the war.
On the other side I’ve 3 sets of campaign medals. To my knowledge none on that side, who were in the navy were lost.
Dr. Shawn Faulkner also has some good videos on this. He has one called 'Crossing No Man's Land' that goes into depth about how weapons had changed in the years leading up to the war and about tactical and operational warfare.
Churchill left the front a few weeks before The Somme offensive, did he not? Good timing that!
General Arthur Curry was the reason the Canadians did so well against Vimy Ridge in 1917 brilliant commander.
Aquaman?????!!!!!!????
My Great Grandfather as a Seargent of Ordanance in the U.S. Army shipped out the earliest to Europe. He was tasked with shell recovery. He'd collect the spent casings and ship them back to be pollished and reused and he would bring fresh shells to the front.
He was also, since he had the wagons and trucks, to recover and transport the dead from the front and hospitals.
During the Flu outbreak he credited not getting sick while sitting on the back of the wagon with all the dead was he drank copious amounts of French wine and cognac and smoked American cigarettes, Camels to be exact.
The wine and Camels couldn't save him from being gassed with phosgene. That and the exposure to God knows what chemicals left him with severe Parkinson's Disease after he mustered out in 1920. He worked as a firefighter until the mid 1930's when politics lost him his position so he got a job with the WPA then in the inland shipyards building LST's. By 1948 when my Grandfather, his son, got home from Europe my Great Grandfather was to sick to work. He soldiered on though, rarely going out because the shaking embarrassed him. When he would go out he'd take my mother to the park down the street from his apartment and watch my Mother play.
He'd finally succumbed to lung cancer in 1961. My mother says he just gave up when he'd lost my Great Grandma, the most beautiful girl in tiny Newburgh I've been told, to heart disease.
He was a tough old man. He fought my grandfather tooth and nail to stay home. My grandfather was too young to enlist for WWII, but he fought his father so hard that he signed for him so he could enlist at 16. My Grandfather got to Germany the week after V.J. day. He was put on occupation duty in shattered Germany.
Neither man spoke of what they saw in Europe all those years but a few times, but after he got home my Grandfather and his Father just understood eachother.
I keep their photos in their uniforms in Europe side by side with some souvenirs from their times in Europe. I really miss my Grandpa. It's been 3 years now since I lost him.
Great vid. Years ago I took a class that looked at WWI and WWII as one long war with a long cease fire in the middle. Looking around the world today, it appears that we are still trying to figure it out.
I can't remember who said it, but the interwar period was basically "reloading"
There's so many fascinating events, that has happened throughout history, but for me, WW 1 is one of the absolute most interesting. It was truly the event, that divided from the "Old World History" to the "New World History". Yes there where other wars, where technically larger percentages of one country's population died, and the soldiers living conditions where bad, but WW 1 was the first time so many countries all around the globe had fought in the same interconnected war and single battles could have devastating casualty rates for both sides. It was the first time technology and tactics had developed as fast as it did. It was the first time, that the devastation of the land and cities was so total, and that the scars of battles could easily be seen for generations to come. It was the first time, that the civilian population in entire parts of countries, was straight up annihilated. There where single battles in WW 1, where there where used more ordinance in a day, than the entire 7 Years War, French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars combined. I'm not belittling the wars of old, they where also a living hell, but compared to WW 1, there where just no precedent. It showed the World the devastating potential of industrial warfare all culminating in WW 2.
‘Were’ not ‘Where’
@@Terin16 Wrong war Grammar Nazi.
One of my Irish great-grandfathers died in WWI fighting for the British. Another Irish great-grandfather was killed by the British in the 1916 Easter Uprising. Ironic.
Read up on the history of why Ireland made a deal with the British and entered the war on the British side--to gain Irish independence. Things were different by WWII when they were neutral, but secretly helping the Brits, not entirely unlike the Americans at the outset of the war.
What about the Treaty of Trianon? That was pretty brutal, and far more costly than Versailles.
And of course, we in the West never really hear about it.
Apparently you did hear about it as you know about it.
@@elchapito4580What a pointless reply
I respectfully disagree with Dan on the last point. In that there is no consistent measure for "Harshness" we can all use. I feel it's a very subjective term. The same way a Vietnam veterans view of "harsh" might be different to Japanese WW2 soilders perception of harsh. They are all relevant and subjective.
It's Germans post WW1 and not Dan that should really be answering the question on if they felt it was harsh. What Dan has unintentionally done is the equivalent of me saying the WW2 was not as harsh for Britian because places like Russia and China had it 100 times worse. It would be wrong and would downplay the relative percieved harshness and experiences the Brits felt.
It would have been better if he used evidence of Germans reactions to the treaty rather than comparing apples with oranges.
We need to rember the treaty created alot of conditions and ill will in Germany that were so bad that Hitler and his promise for German Glory was an attractive and embraced solution by the Germans. I can't see a Germany that "didn't" feel the the treaty was harsh making the same decision. We also need to rember most of what made Hitler so popular in the early years was his resistance to the measures in the treaty. Again if the treaty wasn't that harsh the Germans would have precieved it as such a big deal. But that's my take on it.
I was wondering if anyone will mention this, so thank you @rageagainstmyhatchet. It's always a pretty hot topic (even after all this time) in Hungary, since technically 2/3 of all the territories were detached (speaking of only the Hungarian territories, not the entire Hapsburg Empire), but it was also much more complicated - like in the case of Turkey for the Treaty of Versailles, a huge amount of different ethnical groups were living in the detached lands, which had formed their own individual countries after WWI, respectively. It was still pretty harsh economically, as we lost a lot of very valuable mines, farmlands, all significant mountain ranges and the railway network got chopped up by new borders.
I like to look at it from historical persoective as I don't see a point in dwelling in the past. But I remember being unlucky enough on my highschool graduation exam to get the Treaty of Trianon as my oral exam topic, and how I hated to talk about something that still was a super political topic at the time (and still is now). My teacher literally had to ask me to stop being so PC and try to express at least some emotions when talking about it, since it was still a major kick to our identity as we are now. I would, however, love to see a video from Western European view on this and how it is looked at by historians today.
@@Maxrodon The other thing he is missing, is the revolution that formed the Weimar Republic, it forced the End of the German Empire, by the Abdication of the Kaiser, add in Versaille negotiated by those who took power after said revolution, you leave a people crippled of national identity and starved for any shred of Glory. The Kaiser as all men, was flawed, Kaiser Wilhelm the First was the superior Kaiser, but he wasn't an utter monster, he led a successful Empire, but bad luck and human error he lost lots of it and ultimately all of it. When there was no glory left in it's longstanding traditions, economic instability, and a treaty that demanded payment that seemed unjust. It makes a desperate people seek some form of national glory. Even from man like Hitler. We forget the political atmosphere surrounding Hitler's election, it was basically like in Spain in 1934, Communists or Fascists or in this case, Nazis. It was an unpleasant road either way, Hindenburg could not hold Parliament, so the Nazis who at least hadn't been tried at all seemed the best choice. Sadly, there was no good choice. Versaille by pure analytics, seems mild compared to other treaties, signed or demanded, but to a people without a national identity, a national glory, it truly is the worst treaty.
As a Canadian, thanks for mentioning Arthur Currie and his amazing innovations. I was always thinking it was a Canadian who created the phrase "Lions, led by donkeys", because that was a sentiment here until a Canadian was finally allowed to lead the Canadian soldiers.
Australians who know the details love Arthur Currie and appreciate the man's great quality in his hours of extreme strain. And the hierarchical nonsense he dealt with.
The commonwealth battalions in the awful circumstances of the two wars, Korea, Vietnam and onwards have proved formidable.
I'm not surprised that Dan Snow mentioned him! Snow is half Canadian himself!
I live in the town he grew up in (Strathroy, ON). Nice statue of him here + a small museum focusing on him.
Yeah Australia’s casualty rate went down after they were allowed to lead themselves.
The name sturmtruppen comes from Germans naming the terror of hearing Canadians have arrived at the Front. Terrified of the Canucks
The first myth is a bit disingenuous. All the previous conflicts were far longer than WW1. The Taiping Revolution was 14 years compared to 4. Also, China’s population in 1850 (when Taiping started) was 450 million compared to Europe’s population of 321 million (plus an additional 13 million non-Europeans in the Ottoman Empire). This puts the casualty per capita on par with each other, however it took 3.5 times longer to reach that number in the Taiping Revolution.
IOW, the average deaths per day during the Taiping Revolution was 5870. WW1 averaged 13,700 deaths per day.
Plus, the point he brings up in myth 2 that defends how many troops survived with injuries because of medical advancements shows that the WW1 death toll would have been incredibly higher if it weren’t for those advancements. If “casualties” also included the wounded, injured, and diseased like the modern definition, then WW1 would be higher than the Taiping Revolution; with 20 million dead and 21 million wounded.
And then throwing in the bit about US soldiers “only” having 110,000 deaths; “less than the Civil War”. Well, Duh.
That war had the most US casualties of any war… because it was fighting itself. Plus, despite the US entering WW1 until the last year of it, the first IS troops made it to Europe 3 months later. So in 9 months, US troops experienced 110,000 deaths. The death rate per month is comparable…. 12,220 deaths per month 13:13 in WW2 compared to 12,870 during the Civil War.
Even Myth 7 (which I’ve never heard anyone say “nothing changed”) contradicts 1. The massive advancement in weapons increased the sheer bloodiness of WW1. Rarely in history has there ever been such advancement forcing such a massive change in tactics.
And holy hell, Myth 9 is an absurd stretch. Everyone did lose. The “losers” just lost more. Immediately after WW1, the “winners” created borders and rulers in the Middle East that still negatively affect us today. The results of Germany directly led to the Nazis and WW2. WW1 resulted in the Russian revolution, the creation of the USSR, and (thanks to the Nazis causing WW2) eventually the Cold War. It also allowed Woodrow Wilson to introduce “Wilsonian Interventionism”; the US policy of intervening globally to “pursued” other nations to adopt “US democracy”. Every time the US has poke it’s nose into other nations business to manipulate elections and governments can be traced back to this in one way or another.
IOW, nearly every major conflict since 1918 can be directly or indirectly attributed to WW1… mainly excluding the Second Sino-Japanese war.
I think your focus directly on death in terms of casualties severely undersells the impact of the injuries, both physical and mental that most never suffered from. In addition the technology led to such an intense concentration of casualties and in more barbaric ways than had ever been seen. Mustard gas, intense artillery bombardments and machine guns led to such a high number of men killed and wounded in a short timeframe and small areas
There is an inaccuracy here. Pershing didn’t fight the Apaches on the great plains. Apaches are not from the great plains, nor anywhere close. Pershing fought in South Dakota against the Lakota Sioux, yes. He moved around but was most famously active in New Mexico and Arizona, territory that ranges from desert to high mountains. His famous campaign before WWI was against insurgents, mostly in Mexico.
I thought I knew a lot about the Great War, but I learned a lot of new facts from this video. Very well presented and highly entertaining!
No, you've simply been given another person's opinion. You haven't been given any facts. As an example- comparing to the Taiping Rebellion (which lasted 14 years) or WW2 (which lasted 6 years) is not a comparison for deaths unless you recognise the other two conflicts lasted much longer. See- no facts, just someone elses opinion
@@simontomlinson6484 doesn't change the fact that the Taiping Rebellion was bloodier
i dont know, some of these myths are basically strawman arguments and t#8 is mostly true and the last 2 are completely true.
@@MagicButterz was it bloodier per capitia? was it bloodier in deaths per minute? see, the thing is these kinds of things are rarely black and white, yes or no answers.
@@simontomlinson6484Not really
My uncle was in the Navy during World War II. He once told me that it was the great adventure of his life. In fact, in the 1970s, after seeing a performance of the musical, On the Town, which is a story about three sailors on leave in New York City, he seemed sad. I asked what was wrong and he said, "I realized I have had any fun since 1945."
My grandfather was a WW1 veteran . He served in the US Army Air Service.
In 1979 he gave me a picture of him with his Nieuport 28 fighter, taken " somewhere in France."
The casualty rate for junior officers in WW1 was staggeringly high and an absolute refutation of the idea that the Upper Classes in the UK simply sent the Working Classes to die.
I'm not sure if there has ever been another war more responsible for generating more misconceptions than the First World War.
A lot of the myths emerged in the 1960s, 50 years after the events. And when the veterans were starting to pass away.
The loss of Jr officers does not refute that, and class discrepancies are cited in just about all wars. It was the "brass's" callousness of repeatedly sending so many to their deaths for so little that sticks out. That is not a misconception, and it was not just the British army, as all the armies were the victims of poor generalship,. However the British had the most professional army of the time, and it shocking it had such poor leadership....Read 'The Donkeys" or its modern (USA) equivalent "The Generals" on how a professional army suffers under poor leadership
Once again Dan Snow speaking out of the area where the sun fails to shine
4:42 in the small town of Calne, in Wiltshire, the War Memorial holds the name of the Lord of the Manor, Lord Lansdowne, killed at Ypres. The same family lost two more sons, a Lord and a Marquess in WW2, at Normandy and in Italy within a week of eachother.
I recall reading that the wet, muddy conditions of the trenches was mostly the result of two factors. Firstly, the plains of Flanders were notoriously wet and boggy and had been the Bain of armies throughout history. It was drained by a complex network of ditches and channels maintained by local farmers. The massive shelling pulverized and interrupted this network destroying the drainage. Secondly, there were a couple of years when the precipitation greatly exceeded the average.
It was muddy in the latter stages of the Somme too - the fighting started there in the height of summer and didn't stop until the middle of November, and it was a bitter winter too.
to add on that, the germans were fighting more defensively. they took more time to make the trenches durable/ liveable.
I am from the US, I am in my late fifties - I knew veterans of WWI in my youth, indeed, my dad fought on Guadalcanal, and Bougainville, in the American South Pacific campaign - and my eldest brother was a Viet Nam vet- the thing is, as horrible as WWI is characterized, those old vets, all long gone now, just seemed more able to absorb that war's privations and go back to plowing, and keeping shop, ets., once that war was done. One thing to consider: The US was involved in WWI for NINE MONTHS. And we lost as many young men, in that span of time, as we lost in three and a half years of war in Korea.
A world war can't be compared to a UN police action.
This was a really good one Dan. I remember a quote by Abraham Hicks a few years back that really resonated with me:
"Don't worry about this world; it is not broken. And don't worry about others. You worry more about them than they do. There are people waging war; there are people on the battlefield who are more alive than they've ever been before. Don't try to protect people from life; just let them have their experience while you focus upon your own experience."
Thanks, from another Dan. :D
Thanks for mentioning the incredible advances in airplanes. There were zeppelins as well, of various types, some of which regularly bombed London.
I’d love to see you debate this with Dan Carlin!
While a small percentage of an army becomes a casualty if you look at just the combat arms the percentage is a lot higher.
Monash was the finest Allied general of the war. Invented the philosophy of combined arms operations first employed at the Battle of Hamel July 4 1918, which were then employed on a large scale during the Hindenburg Line attacks in August that essentially forced the Germans to the table
True. Also he was a son of a small town hotel owner. He was a gifted engineer, not a "toff," who worked for his living.
The Canadian army used combined arms starting with the Battle of Vimy Ridge in 1916. They took Paschendaele, where the British and Anzacs didn't.
Tha hindenburg… Whateva happened there…
I recently heard OSP Red mention, on the OS Podcast, why she doesn't make videos about misconceptions any more, but instead builds the narrative around accurate information without even mentioning the misconceptions, for fear that they'll be the only part that people would remember. I think that also makes for a more interesting video.
Red also pointed out, in her video series on how to do research, that schools often teach people to research by first coming up with a theory, then finding evidence that corroborates it, which isn't how research actually works.
Fascinating stuff. The most surprising fact? That casualty-rate for British generals.
I think I'm right in saying that it was more hazardous being a British infantryman advancing from Normandy to Germany in WW2 than being in the trenches of WW1.
I think the key is the "advancing" part of that. Trenches were there to reduce your chances of being killed. The most dangerous part was getting out of them.
A man who spent his whole life studying war, never served , never fought a war, much less fought a man trying to kill him . Talks about war, tells you about numbers and percentages. That's wonderful. History is a great thing. Now , as a man who has served and fought wars, and had men trying too kill me with everything they had left. Any war you are in is the "Great war" because it's your war. If you're lucky to live, then you have the right to your myths and nightmares. Not a academics belittling you're war with numbers and his opinion what you went thru. War is hell, I don't recommend it.
Master Sergeant 3rd/75th U.S.Army (retired) 1983/ 2010
This is a good video, but i don't think you can suggest that the First world War wasn't uniquely bloody, more British lives were lost in battle on the first day of the Somme than the entire Napoleonic War.
For some, it would have been just plain fun. Aviation had only been around for not much more than 10 years at the start of the war. It would have been an impossible dream for most men to pilot an aeroplane, yet thanks to the demands and innovation required by the war, lots did have the opportunity and by all accounts, despite the hazards, a lot of pilots got a kick out of it.
I think about that too. My 2x great grandfather and his brother served in Egypt and Belgium, thatust have been one hell of an adventure coming from two English shoe makers.
@@shaneshane4706 - Check out the trilogy of books by Peter Hart - it's pretty clear that at one time or another, the pilots and observers had a really poor time of it. They might have had more opportunities to let off steam than the PBI, but the fatality rate exceeded any front line ground unit - and the manner of death was often worse than catching a bullet in no-mans-land.
Having said that - I recall an interview with a WW2 RAF pilot, and he admitted that his comment was not normally openly made, but - "it was fun" - there you were, 18-24 or however young, and given the controls of one of the most amazing vehicles of the day. If you could put up with the short periods of time when someone was actively trying to kill you, it wasn't a bad life.
One myth is that the war ended in Nov 1918 and that guns went silent. In reality you had conflicts all over Europe and Asia that lasted several years after the armistice date of the Western front. The Russian civil war and subsequent Polish-Russian war was a direct consequence of WW1 as was the Greco-Turkish war , both dragging on several years into the 1920:s.
French loses were a bit closer to or higher than 2 million. If you count civilians and French colonies.
When you brought up the bit about "everyone hating it", I was really hoping you'd bring up Adrian Carton de Wiart and his line:
"Frankly, I had enjoyed the war."
Sounds like a psychopath.
Ww2 has lots of myths and misconceptions too.. great video, love your work 🤟
I think one of the biggest tragedies of the war was how it was such a loss of innocence for an entire generation and for whole societies. So many men went off to war with such loyalty to country that their patriotism was almost a certain piety for their homeland. Many of the women who signed up as nurses did so out of a great desire to do good. The war took their earnestness and virtues and ground them down under the vicious machine of a futile conflict that was largely the vanity project of empires, all supercharged with new horrific mechanical means of destruction.
The corruption of the best is the worst.
It’s also rather chilling to contemplate how in all the horrors of the Second World War, no one really deployed poison mustard gas on each other. Like, even the Nazi German commanders remembered how awful that stuff was and didn’t dare use it on their enemies (the death camp showers excepted.)
I don't think it's a fair comparison with the deaths. World War 1 only took 4 years whilst most of the 'deadlier' conflicts that you present are way longer. Comparing the death count of an event that lasted 4 years against one that lasted 30 years just doesn't really seem all that fair.
My great grandfather died with the Fusiliers at The Somme. Say what you will about these myths, but he only spoke of the horror before he rotated back to the front for the last time.
I'm just surprised Dan Snow didn't end the video with a rousing chorus of "Oh What a Lovely War" while waving a little plastic Union Jack.
@@HieronymousCheeseOld myths die hard, it seems.
Hey Dan. Love your work 👍
Well said that man! TY for slaying the myths
21:50 Fun fact, the payment the Germans demanded of the French in 1871 (a war the French started over the wording of a telegram) was calculated to be equal to the amount Napoleon 1 demanded of the Prussians after he conquered them.
Dan Snow reminds me of his Dad at Election time when he’s in full flow. Great vid.
The treaty of versailles being harsh fits right into another myth, the "stab in the back" legend crafted by german ww1 military commanders. it goes that the war would have been won but the military was "stabbed in the back" by the new democratic leaders. thus, the harsh treaty of versailles is not only a "punishment", but one they didnt deserve and is the fault of the new government. their victory "was stolen" from them. this exploited the tensions in the country and laid the roots to undermine the new government right from the start. in fact, the generals knew the war was lost but avoided publicly admitting it. they made a politician, who had nothing to do with the causes of war, sign the treaties so they could save face and later blame it on him and his new government. it was a calculated move
Well done video. I think with the myth of being bloody and the horrors of trench warfare I think the perception was there, in large part bc of battles like Verdun where you could lose 50k men taking back 100 yards.
That perception affected the course of the future. The German Blitzkrieg and MacArthurs strategy of Island hopping came out of the horrors of WWI. Macarthur saw the future with mechanized warfare and im WWII he tried to minimize using soldiers as much as possible, took land they needed for strategic reasons and used navy guns& aircraft to pound the enemy first.
I agree that with WWI they looked back.at the cost and saw it didn't less to a lasting piece, and were bitter. Some of the reasons were that the loss of 'tue best and brightest' were highlighted, when poets and scientists had artists died, a big deal was made of the loss ( it is quite disheartening to think of it, the working class kids had lives and dreams and the like too).
The perception of WWI drove Island hopping& the blitzkrieg, but it also had other effects. The French Military doctrine was based in the 30s on the idea that another war would be the same as WWI, hence the maginot line. The French military was bigger than Germany at the start of WWII, they had decent tanks and aircraft. The problem was the leaders expected WWI, with infantry dug in, where tanks& planes were to be used to break the siege. The Germans came in with a rapid , mobile war& the French generals couldn't handle it, lost the will to fight.
There were a lot of bad commanders in WWI..bad, hesitant leadership is why Gallipoli failed, the plan was solid, but the Navy& army commanders hesitated . The French general staff knew the German Schlieffen plan since about 1900, yet their battle plan was based on some notion of Élan winning the field, rather than preparing plans to stop Germany going into Belgium.
Was Versailles unfair? Compared to what the Prussians forced on a France in 1870 no. However, Churchill and others realized on a modern war forcing the loser to pay for every bullet was foolish, as was Germany borrowing money from the US at rates they knew couldn't be repaid. The other problem is Versailles let the German military off Scott free. There were atrocities that never were accounted for, a lot, by the Germans and their allies. The real problem was not occupying Germany under the terms of the treaty, that is where Versailles was unfair to the victors. It let the German military claim they hadn't lost bc the enemy never came into a Germany. According to the military Germany was betrayed, not lost a stupid war that never should have been fought, which Hitler took up.
The myth that Versailles was unfair was taught in school as the excuse for the rise of the Nazis..what it was used for was to excuse the German ppl for Hitler,that they were down and out, economically wiped out,etc. by blamimg the victors it absolved the German ppl, who in the cold war we needed them seen as allies. I will add the Germans had a lot of nerve, given their behavior in 1870, 1900& in the occupied areas in WWI. Myths often serve purposes. The myth of ww1 being the most bloody war was used to absolve French leaders in WWII of their collapse, it was bc they couldn't stand to fight bc they had lost so much in WWII ( funny part is the French soldiers fought hard, it was the leadership that collapsed ).
Anyway great video.
.
My great great uncle fought and died in the Battle of Paschendaele in 1917. I obviously think that WW1 was horrible, but I'm also glad these myths were pointed out and corrected
Yeah, my family lost two brothers at Passchendaele so I can't upvote your comment enough.
@@TheCanadiangirl4 thanks
What you need to take into account is WW1 was just over 4 years so the death toll in short time was horrific.
Also about the survival rate it depends when they entered the war, for example British soldiers who served from the start of the war had 30% chance of death and 64% chance of being wounded. Which is very high.
Just discovered this channel thank you you tube im hooked on these videos
You left off the Italian front when discussing the wider conflict. Approx 650k Italians died and the Central Powers lost around 400k. It was a front with very little movement and some of the most dramatic and deadly battles in the whole of the war.
Yep. One of the reasons I think Cadorna was arguably the worst commander of WWI.
Cadorna's fault
@paddyleblanc Considering thousands of British troops fought in the Italian campaign, that's just isn't it.
He did mention it at 8:50, but for only about 2.5 seconds.
A truly excellent analysis and very well explained. I might disagree with some of the myths and analysis but as a whole this analysis is excellent. The last point about the harshness of the settlement treaty between Germany and Russia was truly remarkable.
I respectfully disagree with Dan on the last point. In that there is no consistent measure for "Harshness" we can all use. I feel it's a very subjective term. The same way a Vietnam veterans view of "harsh" might be different to Japanese WW2 soilders perception of harsh. They are all relevant and subjective.
It's Germans post WW1 and not Dan that should really be answering the question on if they felt it was harsh. What Dan has unintentionally done is the equivalent of me saying the WW2 was not harsh for Britian because places like Russia and China had it 100 times worse. It would be wrong and would downplay the relative percieved harshness and experiences the Brits felt.
It would have been better if he used evidence of Germans reactions to the treaty rather than comparing apples with oranges.
We need to rember the treaty created alot of conditions and ill will in Germany that were so bad that Hitler and his promise for German Glory was an attractive and embraced solution by the Germans. I can't see a Germany that "didn't" feel the the treaty was harsh making the same decision. We also need to rember most of what made Hitler so popular in the early years was his resistance to the measures in the treaty. Again if the treaty wasn't that harsh the Germans would have precieved it as such a big deal. But that's my take on it.
@@Maxrodonit wasn't harsh enough. The way I see it, they started ww1 and so they reep what they sow. Hitler was going to claim he's place in history no matter what.
@@Maxrodon I think it's important to view the treaty in context, while always bearing in mind that the losers of _any_ conflict are always going to feel hard done by. In that light, it may remain true that other treaties had harsher terms, but people are likelier to accept them more as long as it doesn't look like the aim is to punish. With Versailles, the Allies (Clemenceau especially) expressly wanted to punish Germany, making them responsible for the war (and, by extension, its cost). When you consider that consensus among Germans was they hadn't actually lost (the view was that Germany hadn't explicitly surrendered and so couldn't have been said to have lost), being punished and treated like losers was always going to build resentment.
It is common knowledge that the terms of Versailles were negotiated for six months with Germany not allowed to participate, and Germany signed against a threat of an invasion from the Rhineland (controlled by the Allies at the time) if they didn't. Then the Deutschmark hyperinflated in 1921-23 after the first reparation payments, causing huge misery, and Allied troops occupied the industrial areas like the Ruhr to ensure goods intended as part of reparations were paid. It didn't matter that the treaty itself didn't necessarily cause the economic collapse (that was more because the Kaiser and his govt mostly paid for the war by borrowing). At that point, from a German POV it was extremely easy to believe the stab-in-the-back myth, i.e. Germany hadn't lost and was betrayed by its govt who shouldn't have surrendered).
It's not often known but Hitler and the Nazis were far from alone in their ideas on this; they were just the most militant and organised. If it hadn't been them, there would very likely have been somebody else pushing almost the same ideas.
Thanks for doing this! Recommend the series The Great War, which follows the war ween by week. It also covers the entire world.
One of my Great-Grandfathers was a german soldier in both world wars, he was lucky, in that he was a blacksmith and served, in both wars in the rear fitting horseshoes for the Artillery horses and both times rather short (serving 1918 and 1939-1941). He wrote about the first world war to his father, that it was destroying the horses and the men, and leaves only cowards and mules. In 1945 he was very happy, when his oldest son was arguably a coward, defecting while his unit marched east from the Siegfried line and just waited at home until the allies could get to the village.
Great documentary. I have always thought that 1914 was the beginning of the 20th century. When WW I ended, it was the downfall of the Russian Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Turkish Empire; it was the rise of fascism and communism. I had a great uncle who got a battlefield commission near Sedan, France in 1918.
It kinda depends on how long the wars went on doesn't it? First world war was way shorter than the thirty years war I'd be guessing
Not really. Statistically it's not the bloodiest war. I'm sure there were tiny conflicts that lasted weeks where more people died per hour for example. The first would war might not be in the top 50.
That actually probably untrue. WW1 had some very short battles. The 1st Battle of the Marne lasted 7 days and on average saw 77,000 a day. The 2nd Battle of the Marne lasted 3 days for 100,000 casualties a day. I could go on and on. Even WW2 (as far as I know) never saw such casualty rates.
@@lindagoad2163 I wonder how the French revolution would rate.
Dan, absolutely amazing facts and figures, what happened was horrendous but it made the world such a different place and a stepping stone for the future.
Many thanks for this, brilliant film and pics and the details are fantastic.
Truly fascinating - many of my beliefs have been overturned. Thank you.
As much as I agree with a lot of this, they didn’t call it “The Great War” and “The War to End All Wars” for nothing. There was horror there, but myths deserve to be busted, so good job Dan and team.
Who coined those terms and why? Anything coined by Wilson is deeply suspect as propaganda to get his League of Nations ideas in place. These remind me of The Greatest Generation, popularized by Tom Brokaw about his father. It seems to me that title belongs instead to his grandparents' cohorts who were involved in two world wars and the Great Depression.
my grandfather served with the 38th (Ottawa) Battalion of the Canadian Expeditionary Force in Europe in WW1. Miraculously, he made it home without physical injury but was haunted for the rest of his life by his experiences and what he had seen. I believe, in many ways, that the casualty rate in warfare is 100% - an experience echoed by my father who served in the Royal Canadian Air Force in WW2 and definitely came home with what we now call PTSD.
My Canadian father joined the Black Watch in 1939 in the UK. He luckily came through the conflict but never talked about it! He fought in UK, Africa and France. (Falaise Gap). Still miss him so much. John, UK.
Perhaps 100% of those who experience combat, but most soldiers and sailors in war don’t see combat. The absolute worst case I know of is the US phase of the Vietnam war when the US had well over 500,000 troops in country but only about 80,000 were in combat units. The French in the earlier phase had a force of some 143,000 and still had some 80,000 in combat units. These days a ratio of 8 support for every 1 in a combat formation is pretty common in western armies - or the US at least.
My British great grandfather (who was living in Montreal at the time) fought in the WWI, Battle of Ypres and lost a lung due to mustard gas.
Another Great grandfather joined the Royal Artillery under-aged. He was a driver. Thinking modern term of what that is was different for them them back then. My Great-grandfather drove horse drawn carriages with large weapons like canons. Vehicles were very new at the time, so not used much on the battle field, especially at the beginning. Both survived the war.
World War II - My Montreal Great-grandfather wanted to fight, but he was told to leave it for the younger generation, he did his time with the Boer War and WWI.
My grandfathers fought in WWII and I'm sure both had PTSD and heavy alcoholics.
I grew up on military bases surrounded by many veterans of WW2 and Korea. Many of those who had never seen actual combat were also obviously deeply affected by their service, either through leaving peaceful homes in their teens and becoming entrapped in brutal wartime discipline or through the loss of those they knew, often including family members. Many I knew were unable to return to the civilian life, often re-enlisting after failed attempts or unable to countenance the effort. Substance abuse and physical violence were frequent, and I’m sure the suicide rate was above normal. Facing fire does not solely define the service experience of the military in war time exclusively. I saw too much too closely to believe that.@@MrDubyadee1
Small world. My Great-Uncle also served in the 38th (Ottawa) Battalion of the C.E.F. He was from Sophiasburgh. During the 100 Days Offensive, he was wounded while crossing the Arras-Cambrai Road, near the village of Dury, on the Drocourt-Queant Line. He was hit in the body by German machine gun fire, and taken to a nearby field hospital for treatment. He died of his wounds on September 10th. He is buried in Terlincthun British Military Cemetery, north of Boulogne.
What interests me about most accounts of WWI is that they describe the events, and the "causes" are left to some simplified explanations in the history textbooks: "alliances", etc. The best piece I know on the causes is a book by David Fromkin. He explored motives, etc. Unfortunately, I don't have the book with me, so can't share the title.
The "restless state of Europe" in 1914 is explored by Barbara Tuchman in The Proud Tower. It's not exactly on-topic, but is one of my favorite books.
As a fellow historian, your presentation is truly inspiring ! thank you
Personally the significance of WW2 was the foreshadowing of what industrialized war could do. Pretty much all of the carnage of that war took place in relatively small fronts compared to WW2. Some of the ears you are talking about lasted a decade or more .WWI was 4.5 years so you have to take into consideration the death toll in a very short time.
One other reason for German resentment over the Treaty of Versailles was that Germany itself had not been invaded, so the majority of German civilians did ot think that they had really been defeated.
I was skeptical about number 10 and the argumentation was even poorer than expected. The treaty of versailles is one of the biggest blunders in history.
I feel the thing with WW1 is that going out of your protective earthworks and then rush across the area that looks like the moon while beeing gunned down by maschine guns only to have brutal hand to hand combat until one side decided it threw enough lifes away that day and stopped.
Then the counterattack happend and you repeat that all over again.
That is history out of Blackadder. Tactics evolved. With every large attack they learned what worked (or appeared to work) and what didn't. By the later stages of the war it was combined arms and storm troop and infiltration tactics. The approach in 1918 was very different to 1914. Many of the larger battles took place where the ground didn't look at all like the moon until later into the battle.
I think the Great War gets that reputation because it involved the world more than any of those other battles, and so it can resonate uniquely world wide to all people.
Before then wars typically tended to be regional, between few or two nations.
Actually the wars between Britain, France, and Spain were pretty global if you go beyond European land clashes. You could also throw in the Portuguese and Dutch.
In the American colonies of the 1770's you'd have found quite a range of folk bashing hell out of each other.
I think one of the prevalent myths is that the soldiers fought in the trenches every day…no respite etc?
That was true in some theatres and militaries, I think?
WW1 is always so interesting to me. It was definitely a pivoting point in warfare as we speak. From generals having to adapt to the change down to the geo politics behind it and let's not forget technology and manufacturing
As a Czech man I was nicely surprised by the usage of Czech map at 20:30 (that's why the names are so weird, lol).
Great video as always, thank you.
When they say bloodiest, I don't think they mean literally the most amount of blood. I imagine they're talking about vast amounts of men cut down with machine gun fire in one day which never happened in previous wars, to my knowledge.