10 Great myths about World War One debunked

[centurion]

Cornish, Appendix 4, page 235 :

" Of those called to the colours almost 700,000 were killed in action ; 970,000 died from their wounds ; 155,000 died of disease and 181,000 POWs died of various other causes, giving a total of 2,006,000 dead."

Casualty statistics are not his strongpoint.

The more meticulous estimate of Golovin, a staff officer who served in the war, gives 1,300,000 killed in action and 350,000 died from wounds. All the authoritative estimates agree, though, that deaths from disease accounted for a relatively small proportion of the total death roll. Probably the most accurate figure is that of the Russian military historian G.F. Krivosheev, who in 2001 tabulated a total of 2,254,369 deaths : 155,000 from disease ; 190,000 whilst POW and 19,000 from accidents and other causes. The great majority - more than 82% - he attributes to killed in action or died from wounds or gas.

I suspect that Cornish's statement about the Carpathians in the winter of 1914-15 might be correct in so far as casualties - but not deaths -are concerned. This is a very common mistake. People, for example, might insist that disease killed more than battle at Gallipoli ; they're wrong....many more were evacuated sick than were killed; but relatively few of them died.

Phil (PJA)

Those aren't his statistics they are the same figures produced by the US War Department in 1924. and now largely believed to be incorrect. Martin Gilbert of Merton Oxford makes the point that the actual number dead in Russia almost certainly greatly exceeds this figure as many who died from disease/starvation etc were never included.

[phil andrade]

"though no doubt war increased it"

War often increased it tremendously due to the terribly unsanitary conditions of life among armies on the move - poor food and unclean water, bad sanitation, cramped conditions among thousands if not tens or hundreds of thousands of men cramped together and so on. Poor medical treatment for wounds also didn't help. This kind of thing was hardly "natural". One does not need to poo-poo the experience of soldiers in earlier periods and their horrors to get across the point that WWI had its uniquely horrible aspects.

We could, of course, argue that the influenza pandemic of 1918-1919 was exacerbated by the war - for the very reasons you mention - and thereby increase its toll threefold.

Let's not go there.

Suffice it to say, that whatever happened at Marston Moor in 1644 ,or in the Tai Ping Rebellion , the Great War was the first industrialised multi million massacre, and the fact that such a preponderant part of the death toll was achieved by direct violence on the battlefield lends it a unique and deserved notoriety. I wish Dan Snow had acknowledged that.

Phil (PJA)

[Chris_Baker]

Not a comment on Dan Snow per se or even this article particularly, but there is an awful lot of stuff being published at present which was not written by the "author". At least, not in the sense that I consider as "written".

[phil andrade]

Those aren't his statistics they are the same figures produced by the US War Department in 1924. and now largely believed to be incorrect. Martin Gilbert of Merton Oxford makes the point that the actual number dead in Russia almost certainly greatly exceeds this figure as many who died from disease/starvation etc were never included.

No.

The US War Department's 1924 citation was the figure of 1,700,000 killed and died.

Lord ! I'm getting a bit pedantic here....sorry !

Phil (PJA)

[Muerrisch]

Who would have thought it , something like sense breaking through.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25776836

Whatever next: Elvis and Marilyn Monroe both dead, the moon landing was for real?

[Desmond7]

I listened again to Strachan's talk to the Pritzker Military Library in Chicago (you can download the podcast from their site).

I thought the section he did on how the populace THEN viewed the war (its worthiness essentially) was very good. The information on the sales of books by war poets was especially eye opening - have dropped it on a few Eng Lit teachers and watched their eyes narrow with ill disguised animosity.

[Guest exuser1]

Some good bullet points and excellent to see the bit about the harsh payments forced on France in 1871 ,which they payed back ahead of time and still enjoyed The Good Age.

[bruce]

Alan Clark? Historian?

A non sequitor

Bruce

[healdav]

Yes, I was amazed to see Dan Snow actually giving some decent information. Whatever next.

[Moonraker]

Dannyboy beat you to it by five hours:

his thread

Moonraker

[centurion]

Dannyboy beat you to it by five hours:

his thread

Moonraker

And it was already beaten by magscotabroad

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=205379#entry2020125

And everybody knows Elvis is living in a double decker bus on the Moon!

[kenneth505]

While it's great to see the media submitting stories like this the title alone perpetuates the myth of Donkeys and Lions.

Love the sentence in point 8. "However, in a narrow military sense, the UK and her allies convincingly won."

France isn't mentioned until point 9, the only occurrence of the word russia is in that same point contained in the word Prussian.

Still the article has some great links and mentions an event I had not heard of before, Taiping rebellion.

It's going to be a fun five years of media.

[AlanCurragh]

A couple of similar threads have been merged...

[kenf48]

'Lions led by donkeys'

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

No it wasn't, he borrowed' it Click

Mike

Actually Clark attributes it to Falkenhayn Memoirs.

He may well have borrowed it from other sources but the point that is being made is that the supposed exchange between Ludendorff and Hoffman that gives the title and epigraph to his book 'The Donkeys' has never been found and Clark later admitted he made it up. In that regard the above statement is an accurate representation. (See also the late Richard Holmes lecture to Royal Society Edinburgh p.19 http://www.rsescotlandfoundation.org.uk/media/resources/pdfs/crf/prize03%5B1%5D.pdf where he accused Clark of 'casual dishonesty'.)

Ken

[hazelclark]

I'm with Keith on this. We've nearly all had a pop at young Mr Snow in the past, but I think he's 90% on the money with this article, If he keeps it up, we may get to like him!

Me too! Really quite refreshing for a change, and whether you like it or not, the average guy in the street will listen to Dan Snow.

H.C.

Edited 20 January , 2014 by hazel clark

[ianw]

The Snow piece caused a colleague to start a conversation about it and another couple of people joined in whilst we were making afternoon tea.

Most enjoyable.

[centurion]

Actually Clark attributes it to Falkenhayn Memoirs.

He may well have borrowed it from other sources but the point that is being made is that the supposed exchange between Ludendorff and Hoffman that gives the title and epigraph to his book 'The Donkeys' has never been found and Clark later admitted he made it up. In that regard the above statement is an accurate representation. (See also the late Richard Holmes lecture to Royal Society Edinburgh p.19 http://www.rsescotlandfoundation.org.uk/media/resources/pdfs/crf/prize03%5B1%5D.pdf where he accused Clark of 'casual dishonesty'.)

Ken

Casual dishonesty sounds so much better than the buttoned up formal kind. More laid back, chilled out man.

I'd always been taught that the original German phrase better translated as "Lions led by asses" and referred to the relatively young, inexperienced and ill trained British junior officers in the early part of the war rather than the generals. [ Lt George for a fictional example]

[Staffsyeoman]

Not a comment on Dan Snow per se or even this article particularly, but there is an awful lot of stuff being published at present which was not written by the "author". At least, not in the sense that I consider as "written".

A position with which I fully concur. Having read Figes' work on the Crimean War I was going to note his claim for "lions led..." but already marked here, and brings pause for the other assertions, which may therefore need reappraisal. I have encountered far too much over the years accredited to a 'name' written by someone else. Heck, at one point in my government service it was my job to write the stuff which made the speaker look informed (and no, I wasn't a press officer).

[PhilB]

I think it unfortunate that calling these "10 big myths" gives the impression that they don`t contain more than a grain of truth. A myth is a fictitious legend or tradition. Most of these are not myths but exaggerations?

[Muerrisch]

I find myself agreeing with numbers 3,4,5,6,7,8, with no hint of exaggerations.

Any takers?

[Greg Bloomfield]

Point 5 staes that most generals visited the front lines daily. I can see possibly the Brigadier being somewhere close but who higher than him would be there 'daily'?

It does seem to fly in the face of popular belief.

[centurion]

Front line does not mean the firing trench and would include various Batn advanced HQs under his command not to mention other places he might want to inspect "show the flag" in over a length of front that could be some miles

[Ken S.]

The French had to pay for the war that they were responsible for beginning. But aside from the payment and the loss of a tiny bit of territory, France got off pretty easy; as Michael Howard points out:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=MHZJO78bltAC&pg=PT69&dq=Franco-Prussian+war&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sLTeUvudH8bm2gWT2YDoDQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=1807&f=false

Some good bullet points and excellent to see the bit about the harsh payments forced on France in 1871 ,which they payed back ahead of time and still enjoyed The Good Age.

[Guest exuser1]

The French had to pay for the war that they were responsible for beginning. But aside from the payment and the loss of a tiny bit of territory, France got off pretty easy; as Michael Howard points out:

vzxzc.jpg

http://books.google.ca/books?id=MHZJO78bltAC&pg=PT69&dq=Franco-Prussian+war&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sLTeUvudH8bm2gWT2YDoDQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=1807&f=false

Yes Bismark was not Bonapart,and i belive old Boney had some bigger fish to fry ,but he did cut down all those smaller states,and old Louis Napoleon did some what play in to Bismarks hands?

[centurion]

Yes Bismark was not Bonapart,and i belive old Boney had some bigger fish to fry ,but he did cut down all those smaller states,and old Louis Napoleon did some what play in to Bismarks hands?

We'll be discussing the Schleswig-Holstein Question next! Somehow I think we have wandered well away from WW1

Anyone for the Palatinate issue or Louis XIV's reunion policy? The Diet of Worms perhaps?