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.
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.
@@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.
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)
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...
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.
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 !
@@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.
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
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 TH-cam. 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.
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.
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 ... 😵💫
@@lws7394 not "almost", but still incredibly gruesome. What's more, the USSR went on to suffer from a general lack of food and famines, only to get worse with the Great Purge, and then WW2, killing more people in the USSR alone than the total deaths of WW1.
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.
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
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.
Exactly. Honestly this is not a great video. Its not the worst ive seen or anything, but it does the exact opposite that it claims it's setting out to do: debunking myths. It also has a very apparent British bias. 5/10 video
Having seen this video, I am delighted that I was not lectured by Dan Snow. WW1 artillery "had pinpoint accuracy”. It was impossible to point a gun to achieve pinpoint accuracy. Even if you could, the gun was not mounted on a rigid foundation that had a recoil mechanism acting directly along the barrel. Even if the gun was magically perfectly pointed, fitted with a directional recoil mechanism, and mounted on an immovable, solid foundation, the firing charges differed slightly from shell to shell, and barrel wear and progressive thermal expansion of the block and barrel caused the range to differ from that in gunnery tables. If WW1 artillery had had “pinpoint accuracy”, it would have been essential to change aim after each shot. Gunners fired shell after shell without doing so, because their guns peppered fairly large areas. If the Central Powers had “won” the war, a German professor would have produced a video telling us “the war was successful” because it replaced British and French hegemony over many colonies with that of the Central Powers. A delusion persists that British imperialism was somehow good. This deception is aided by blame-shifting, e.g. when tackling Southern Africa a huge emphasis is placed on Afrikaner-supported apartheid (conveniently ignoring much support for it among English-speakers), yet a study of Southern Rhodesian history, (for example), shows how Britain broke the terms of the Rudd Concession that allowed settlers in, imposed white minority rule, butchered thousands during rebellions against British rule, kicked native people off the cooler, high-lying, relatively disease-free plateau into hot, low-lying, disease-ridden areas euphemistically called “tribal trustlands”, imposed racist land reservation, restricted education of native peoples, and imposed racist job reservation. The British got away with it because they did not use words such as “apartheid” and “bantustans”. In Southern Africa, the British imposed the notorious hut tax on villagers living in their own huts, to force them to work for peanuts in British-owned mines. Many migrant labourers who survived the mines, contracted appalling diseases and died without medical care in their home villages. The British repeated much the same pattern throughout Africa. British rule was exploitative. Perhaps you imagine the British did not engage in genocidal massacres such as those of the Germans in South-West Africa (Namibia)? One need only consider the Battle of Omdurman, or Col. Graham’s massacre of the Xhosas on the Cape Colony’s eastern frontier to see this is false. British treatment of suspected Mau Mau guerrillas in Kenya was shocking. No doubt people of the Indian subcontinent and elsewhere know more. To claim WW1 was “successful” because one side “won” it, is fatuous. Wars have extreme costs. Productive workers contribute to the economy. As long as non-military goods (such as delivery trucks) generate profit, they aid the economy. Almost all goods made for peaceful purposes repay the money invested in them, some many times over. The future economic value of people who are maimed and killed is zero. Many leave dependents who must be cared for. The money invested by a government in munitions, weapons, and vehicles of war that are rapidly used/destroyed is not repaid. After the war huge surplus stocks are wasted, e.g. Britain dumped vast quantities of shells and bombs in the Atlantic. Wars burn money that ought to be used to maintain and improve the quality of life of civilians. Many wars plant the seeds of future catastrophes. Wars are testament to the stupidity of political leadership. They are not clever or good. How many wars are “won”? WW1 destroyed support for the middle-of-the-road Liberals in Britain, producing a stagnant stand-off between left (Labour) and right (Conservatives) that crippled British politics and the British economy for decades, culminating in the crisis of the 1970s. WW1 was not a political victory, but a disaster. I have never encountered the myth that WW1 soldiers were starving. Tens of thousands of Russian soldiers did starve, but that’s a fact! Dan Snow says that soldiers received good meals, more than 4,000 calories per day. Perhaps they did, (at least on paper; Churchill’s Naval Brigades went very, very hungry). Civilians, the vast bulk of all populations, paid a huge price. One need only read books such as Vera Brittain’s “Testament of Youth” to realise that by 1917 many non-combatant Britons were starving and many did not have enough coal for winter heating. The situation in Germany, Russia, and other places was much worse. Civilians died in droves. Are civilian deaths due to hypothermia included in war statistics? WW1 may not have maimed and killed the most people on the battlefield, but comparisons are silly. Where does one draw the lines around any war? WW1 cloaked Turkey’s genocide of the Armenians. WW1 precipitated the Communist Revolution in Russia, with war between the Whites and Reds, followed by millions perishing under Stalin. Many small wars and retributive atrocities occurred in the wake of WW1. It spread diseases globally, especially as combatants returned home. Malnourishment made people vulnerable to diseases. The H1N1 Influenza Pandemic of 1918-20 was directly linked to WW1. It killed at least 17 million, mostly young adults, starting with WW1 veterans. WW1 spread diseases such as typhus, malaria, smallpox, polio, whooping cough, and measles. Many died, especially children. Malaria naturally occurs as far north as Belgium and southern England. WW1 shell-hole ponds greatly increased malaria during and after WW1 and WW2. To rank WW1 in terms of lethality is silly. Who knows where to draw the lines? To imply that WW1 was good because it produced technical advances is silly. As an engineer, I reject the spin-off argument. Engineers seek better ways to solve problems. That’s their job in peace and war. Is it better to improve technologies driven by commercial or military needs? Is it a good to have to measure the cost of technical advances in lives? Aircraft evolved rapidly before WW1. Were murderous dogfights necessary for further advances, or would R&D have proceeded without such killing? Did technical advances during WW1 secure victory, or did they merely produce temporary advantages until copied by the enemy? According to www.westernfrontassociation.com/world-war-i-articles/british-medical-casualties-on-the-western-front-in-the-great-war-part-1-dealing-with-wound-related-trauma/, roughly 59% of British casualties were caused by shells and similar missiles, 39% by bullets, 2% by hand thrown explosives, and 1% by blades. The researchers say: “More exotic weapons such as flame-throwers and tanks produced relatively low numbers of casualties although they possessed a strong shock effect, particularly when first introduced.” Was massive shelling (“shock-and-awe”) a leap forward? Shells were used in vast quantities by both sides and produced most casualties. Online statistics show that it took at least 100 shells to kill one soldier, although more were injured. The Germans built strong, deep bunkers in response to shelling, which warned them of impending offensives. It took little time for soldiers to race out of the bunkers to man the firing ramp and machine gun posts. Shell-holes offered cover, but shells destroyed drainage and churned the soil into thick, sticky mud, making it difficult to move quickly. Did massive shelling do the trick at the Battle of the Somme, 1 July 1916? How was Germany really defeated on the battlefield? Gen. Erich Ludendorff, supreme commander of German forces, considered 8 August 1918, the first day of the Battle of Amiens, to be the day that led to Germany’s defeat. 456 British tanks trundled across No Man’s Land over a narrow front and through thick mist, accompanied by infantry. The tanks advanced six miles before the infantry was lagging too far behind to screen them. The tanks stopped and practical difficulties prevented follow-up efforts by the British and French armies. Instead, the new frontline was consolidated. It had not been overstretched, as usual. Casualties were few versus the ground gained. Luck had revealed a successful tactic. The idea was then repeated: brief, concentrated attacks wherever the Allies judged defence to be weakest, followed by immediate consolidation. The Allies rapidly nibbled forwards. Regardless of technology, nibbling could have replaced the long, grinding battles of previous years. A lack of recruits and the desperate conditions of civilians compounded Germany’s military situation, but Ludendorff later reversed his support for an armistice, thinking that Germany could defend a much-shortened Western front on foreign soil. The politicians disagreed, due to the internal disintegration of Germany and impending revolution. “Some men enjoyed WW1.” Some men enjoyed war until bullets and shrapnel severed their spines. Many first-hand accounts tell me the vast majority of soldiers longed for leave and the end of war. Conditions on the Eastern Front were particularly bad, but comparison is fatuous. The Battle of the Masurian Lakes was dreadful. Gallipoli was terrible. Fighting up the Tigris and Euphrates to Baghdad was appalling. Fighting on the freezing plateaus and mountains of the Italian Front was misery. Fighting upon and beneath the sea was ghastly. Fighting in the burning Namibian desert was abysmal. “Some men enjoyed WW1”. Yes, a few men did enjoy WW1. What an important point!
You have raised some good points here. You too clearly have your biases just as this video does but yes Dan snow definitely made some ridiculous claims. Especially cherry picking quotes of psychos who liked the war, there are far more quotes showing how soldiers hated it.
I loved your summary, but you missed the point of the video. Just about all the "myths" are easily disputed as you have done, except for the poor leadership. The point of the video is to lump poor leadership along with these "myths." The length some entities will go to show that British troops were not lead by donkeys.
@@SuperHorseSense That's okay! Not everyone has a reasonable attention span. You really don't need to comment when you find yourself struggling! Just don't read it! I don't give a damn, really I don't!
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.
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.
@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.
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.
Japan killed a miniscule amount of Chinese compared to the prior revolutions and prior sins Japanese war. The west just looks at the casualty number as a catastrophic one but in Asia it's normal. The communist party following wwii killed more people than both sins Japanese wars combined.
Sorry, but you are wrong in regards of the last myth. It wasn't Hitler who said that the Treaty of Versailles was too harsh, it was every one in Germany, even the socialists! And there were even allies who thought that this treaty was too harsh, Churchill for example or the US government. And you should not forget that there has not been a peace treaty after World War II. The 2+4 Treaty in 1990 was made in place of a peace treaty.
It's a real hottake when you say this in germany even today. How the nazis took control and made the Holocaust possible is the core part of history in school during "high school". But sadly, many do not understand what happened and confuse different things. What most today believe is this: The Treaty of Versailles forced germany into an existential economic crises (with hyperinflation). Hitler then resolved this by activiting a war industry (and steel the money from the jews). These are all thesis i heard many times and so much is wrong about them. Hyperinflation happened in the early 20s and was completely and kind of easily resolved during the republic time. There was a second, new economic crises, a deflation with mass unemployment, caused by the financial crash in the whole west (not by versailles). This was very difficult to resolve it happened slowly and not just because of the war industry. Hitler had a very capable finance minister, Hjalmar Schacht, who made the right decisions.
Yep. The treaty of Versailles is so important in the context of understanding why WWII started. Germany missed a payment and the French sent their North African military into Germany ffs and this guy says payment misses weren't enforced?
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.
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.
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.
@@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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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!)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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."
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.
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."
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 %
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.
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.
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.
You can quote statistics all you want Dan, but you only have to visit the WW1 cemeteries to know the full horror of that war. The upper classes might have experienced great losses but the ones that survived were cushioned by their more comfortable life styles. The ordinary soldier didn't get a fair deal after the war.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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
Versailles WAS a harsh treaty.... The most militarily and economically powerful nation in Europe was stripped of its Navy, its merchant fleet, its colonies, its Army, had its financial assets taken, its industry crippled and enslaved, AND the big one that you failed to mention.... was subjected to a civilian targeted hunger blockade AFTER the Nov 11 Armistice until they signed the treaty of Versailles on 28 June 1919. During that time over 700k Germans died of starvation, an unknown number of people developed later issues due to malnourishment during the period, and in the end the Entente leaders wrongfully blamed Germany with starting the war. #extortion It wasn't hard for the Nazis to leverage that to their own evil ends, it was all true.
Agreed. It was stupid too, because it wasn't the old elite (Kaiser, Ludendorff or Hindenburg) that had to sign the treaty. It was the worst possible start for the first german democracy.
@@Hwje1111 Opinions will vary... After 3 decades of reading on the topic and some research at the graduate level, I'm pretty much settled with my views. I can't articulate them to any advanced degree here but suffice it to say that I understand the topic very well. You can't talk about treaties and reparations without settling the guilt issue, which article 231 most certainly did NOT. Your description of the "bad things" the Germans did fits the Brits, French, Russians, and even the Belgians. Back to the guilt issue that "might makes right" did't settle.... Recommend you get your hands on Luigi Albertini's work, or at least look it up. It remains the authority on the topic as acknowledged by pretty much everyone in the know.
@@mitchrichards1532 stop it with this both sides crap. The Germans had made it extremely obvious that they wanted to do as much damage to the enemy as possible. Not only did they commit horrible atrocities against Poles, belgians, serbs and French, but they never denied them. Infact there is evidence that all the photos taken were taken BY THEM because they wanted to use it as intimidation against their enemies, like how cartels distribute stuff films today.
@@mitchrichards1532 The popular history consensus these days seems to be that the Versailles treaty should either have been more lenient or even more harsh. As it was, it humiliated Germany but didn't cripple it, which both left the door wide open for revanchist sentiments while simultaneously making it possible for a future regime to act on those sentiments.
@@blubbson Agreed... It was a garbage compromise that produced more garbage. The US and Wilson's approach was far more lenient and objective. I find that ironic since Wilson allowed US corporations and banks to get so tied to the Entente war effort that the US had to get involved to protect its financial interests. Had the US stayed truly neutral, the war would have ended in 1916 with a stalemate/status quo truce.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
#10 is debatable. Versailles probably wasn't the harshest of treaties, but it wasn't the smartest one. Germany was put on their knees, financially and psychologically. Destruction was huge, and the amount of men deployed meant their economy was destroyed. Besides that, it humiliated both Italy and Japan. England and France emerged as the two last empires (since Austro-Hungary, Ottoman and Prussia collapsed, Spain, Portugal and Sweden were not militarily relevant, and Russia was "rebuilding"), and they sure acted like it.
Not smart in a long-term perspective, I fully agree The treaty was discussed, at least for Austria, in a train wagon in a forest of Compiegne and the winners got out of their way to humiliate Austria - and Austria had no say at the table, in our history classes we are told that anything we had to say - we had to write down on a paper and shove under the door; one goal was to keep the defeated enemy from ever gaining enough strength to cause more problems by minimizing their industry. one reason why, after WW2 Germany and Austria were not bombed back into the Stone Ages and then kept that way with sanctions was that people understood that crippling a nation like that only led to people like Hitler gaining power by giving a humiliated people an outlet for their frustration. In our history classes, it is often pointed out that for Austria (can only say about my home country, not Germany) WW1 never really ended and the years in between up to WW2 were only a cease-fire. The situation was so bad that we had a suicide rate of over 30% and that is a conservative estimate. If you have nothing - well, then you have nothing to lose either and that makes people desperate and dangerous. You either have to eradicate a defeated enemy so completely that the next generation is disconnected from what happened, or you have to make sure that they have little interest in risking their lives being destroyed. One 'successful' (and take that as sarcasm, please) example of winners destroying opposing nations is how the USA treated the indigenous population.
My jaw dropped down when he only concentrated on Germany - and ignored Austria. Because we lost a lot of terrain and it upended our economy because a lot of our food-producing sources were not in what was left, Vienna was much too big suddenly and hard to support. People in the rural parts were starving as well. I have accounts in my family where none of the men came home and left children and wives so struggle, my great-grandfather fell in Italy and my grandfather was born June 1918 - was born after his father had already died. My grandmother (born 1926) remembers having to collect pine cones in the forest to make soup out of, boil them, and she remembered that cabbage was an absolute delicacy. '"And then Hitler came, and I was sent to a resort so I could recuperate (from severe malnutrition and related illnesses like anemia), we had to eat! The rest of my siblings survived!" Hitler bent the narrative to his purpose, no doubt about it, and other countries were suffering as well - but Hitler did NOT invent the resentment people felt towards Britain, the US and France!
"Germany was put on their knees" only for a short time. There was continual renegotiating and Germany didn't actually pay that much. The German economy in the 1920's was not the basket case people think it was. There was a lot of American money going in to the German economy. It was later when the USA went into depression and wanted it's loans paid that Germany went into a tail spin. "Destruction was huge", yes, but not in Germany. Apart from East Prussia it wasn't invaded. Northern France and Belgium was where much of the destruction was. Germany wasn't split up, so apart from now not being an Empire, territorially it was pretty much the same as after unification. It lost land it had formerly taken from Denmark and France and lost land to the formation of Poland, but it was substancially still intact. Japan actually came out of the war with chunks of China and apart, from not being treated as an equal, didn't do badly out of the war. Italy lost a lot but it's tragedy was that it didn't get more out of it. Britain lost much of it's wealth, basically it's gold was put on ships to the USA, as well as many dead. France had huge losses both in men and material. Northern France, an important economic region, was devastated. All participants faced the same problems of men being deployed, so I don't see how Germany was special in that case. Much of the war carried on after 1918 in other areas like eastern europe and what was left of the Ottoman Empire. These other spin-off wars carried on for years. And, in some cases, continue.
but you forgot about the 15 000 cities and towns that were wiped out by the germans the hundreds of bridges and mines that were purposely blown up to weaken france the billions upon billions worth of loot the germans plundered during the occupation of almost a quarter of the country the tens of thousands of french civilians reduced to slavery in work "camps" and the tens of thousands who died of starvation and most importantly the 5.7 millions dead and wounded which represented more than 15% of the entire french population
but you forgot about the 15 000 cities and towns that were wiped out by the germans the hundreds of bridges and mines that were purposely blown up to weaken france the billions upon billions worth of loot the germans plundered during the occupation of almost a quarter of the country the tens of thousands of french civilians reduced to slavery in work "camps" and the tens of thousands who died of starvation and most importantly the 5.7 millions dead and wounded which represented more than 15% of the entire french population
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.
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.
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
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.
It’s often forgotten that average daily casualties of the British army were higher during the WW2 Normandy campaign than at the battles of the Somme or Paschendale.
I will talk as a French The French population was severely hit by this war, even more than the ww2 or the Napoleonic Wars. And the scars are still visible today. Each village has a stone with the names of the ww1 deads. Really shocking when a village of 500 inhabitants has more than 200 names on the stone. And this, because almost all the men (adults, sometimes even younger) were mobilized. Everyone had at least one death in their family, and even more survivors. At least 3 of what I know of my ancestors are dead. And this largely explains the French defeat in 1940. The First World War was not that long ago, and absolutely no one wanted to see the war again. The French and British governments among others wanted at all costs to avoid reliving a war like this, which is why they let Germany carry on in its military ventures, hoping to avoid war. France has not really had a new army since, and has remained in a defensive position, hoping to deter Germany. Taken by surprise by its bypass through Belgium, continuing the fight would only have led to a massacre and an inevitable defeat. We can add that more French soldiers died during ww1 than us soldiers in the entire American history. To finish, a brief presentation of the French casualties. Skip the beginning, go anywhere in the video, it takes 5 seconds th-cam.com/video/1Ir8fp_Buhg/w-d-xo.htmlsi=63_cZaLVzLBYelmH
Not to mention the wounded and the fact that parts of northern France lay in ruins and people in Paris had two shocks / fears from the Germans getting close and being bombarded by a railway gun… That being said - the trauma from losing the war and so many people (including many children dying from starvation and sickness) and then the average joe losing all his life savings in hyper inflation on Germany can also not be underestimated. Not to mention the many big victories until almost the end of the war giving people the wrong impression of the military situation. My great grandfather became a right wing revanchist because he lost everything after WW1 and a supporter of peace after WW2… he even participated in reunions of WW1 veterans until his death but only after ww2.
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.
That was not the only one! This is not his first poorly researched, erroneous video. I think I will spare myself his very amateurish contributions in future.
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.
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.
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
@@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.
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.
If you walk around the towns and villages of Great Britain and bother to even look at the rememberance monuments to the two world wars of the 20th century, you will see that the numbers listed from 1914-18 are almost always much higher than those listed in 1939-45. Both terrible of course and don't reflect the numbers world-wide but that is how we measure it here in terms of our own loss.
This is definitely from and anglo perspective. Some of these "myths" are true depending on the country. France and russia both had mutinys because their leadership was so bad for instance.
I think the last one about the treaty of Versailles is a bit of a faulty comparison and too simplistic. On the one hand, you're obviously right, the sourrounding peace treatiese were all a lot harsher. But were also made under different circumstances. They were usually made with utterly deafeated and invaded nations. To the people of the losing countries it was clear that they lost. WWI barely took place on German soil. Germany was still fighting in other countries when it surrendered. After already having defeated Russia in the east. But it still lost territories inside it's border. AND what was ommitted in this video, the Peace treaty completley put the blame on Germany for the war. Another humiliation. These things combined made a not actually that harsh peace treaty into the tool Hitler could use to get into power. I think a better peace treaty to compare it to would have been that after the napoleonic wars. That peace treaty was about meeting at eye-level wirth a defeated, but not destroyed enemy and making sure peace lasts. And comared to that it was indeed harsh, because lasting peace wasn't really the goalin Versailles.
The Treaty was neither harsh enough nor forgiving enough, is how I've heard it described. A harsher treaty would have prevented German rearmament, for example, and a more forgiving one might not have led to the resentment and nationalism that fed the NSDAP's rise to power.
To be fair,their carte blanche support of Austria-Hungary really was the precipitation of a local squabble into a global one. Germany believed it would win a quick war like 1870 and get it's place in the sun. If it wasn't for German agitation the war wouldn't have occurred the way it did
@@Trebor74 Again, I think that's too simplistic. We all know the rough sequence of actions that caused the war in a literal sense. But I think for WWI that doesn't really cut it. WWI was a conflict between Colonial Empires with Belgium and Serbia caught in the middle. It wasn't a war between one good side and one bad side. The cause for the war was more than a decade of agitation, sabre-rattling and conflicting imperial ambitions from all sides. It could have and should have been prevented 10 years before it started. It's a bit like looking at a bunch of kids who fight and saying the one who hit first is at fault. We wouldn't do that. We'd want to know what lead to the punch to put it into a proper context.
@@KityKatKiller I agree, WAY too simplistic. There were several large players maneuvering and jostling by 1914, and a number of old grudges being held, with scores to be settled. There are far more insightful videos detailing the various conflicts leading up to WW1.
I don't know of any direct ancestors that served in WW1 but my great grandmother's 4 brothers did. 3 served at Gallipoli and survived the war. The only one to die didn't serve in Gallipoli because he was rejected from enlisting because of a lazy eye. He later enlisted after they relaxee the criteria and died in France in 1916 on a night patrol.
In discussing the relative harshness of treaties, it's also worth remembering the German post-war plans for Western Europe. France was to pay huge war debts, disarm its fortresses, and cede territory. The Benelux countries were to be either annexed outright (Luxembourg) or forced into coercive economic relations with Germany in a German sphere of influence. The Allied Powers were to be forced to surrender African colonies to Germany, too. A German peace would have been a brutal affair.
Off to a terrible start right away. That which was used to debunk Myth #1 is itself a myth. The math here is WAY off. It's amazing that you factored in percentage of population as a way to debunk a myth, but you didn't factor in length of conflict. The Taiping Rebellion killed as many as 30M people, but it lasted 3.5X longer than WW1. Conversely, WW1 killed 20M people but was only 4 years. In order for the Taiping Rebellion to reach the violence of WW1, it would have needed to kill 70M people. More than twice its actual number. Civil wars are sort of an unfair comparison, because it's people of the same nationality killing each other. In the American Civil War, only about 300,000 actual Americans were killed. The Confederacy willingly eschewed thier U.S. citizenship, so they shouldn't count as Americans. FAR more ACTUAL Americans died in the 6-8 months of WW1 that they saw than all of the U.S. Civil War. The Civil War would have needed to kill nearly 900,000 to reach WW1 levels. 900K is more than the death total of both sides combined.
Not to mention China didn’t have a working census at the time… These are rough estimates with an agenda behind it… Same reason why we have no clue how many Chinese died in WW2 and yet official Chinese numbers keep rising almost 80 years after the end of the war…
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.
I think a big problem for me with this video is that there was an almost complete disregard for the other countries who fought in WWI. Countries like Newfoundland, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand entered the war to help Britain way before the U.S. but those countries were disregarded or not even mentioned.
My problem with this video is the "myths" are easily debunked except for those that deal with "lions lead by donkeys," and a "rich mans war, but a poor mans fight." In order to debunk those myths they mention Australian, and Canadian leadership. They can't say anything else because then it will just show how poor English leadership was, and the entire point of the video is to show that England had great leadership
Dan in my opinion you are a brilliant historian! In fact my favourite. you explain history in simple and easy narratives and give a wealth of information with out all the waffle. Respect!
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.
Number 10 is just historically inaccurate. German reparations were not initially limited to their ability to pay. German reparations were made in three categories of bonds and only the third category of bonds was indeterminate. The first two were absolute.
4:35 - That is true, but Americans died disproportionately at the end of the war. Due to their inexperience of fighting trench warfare compared to other nations.
Relevant to Myths 1 & 6, there is hard data that compares casualty rates and number of days in combat/close contact with enemy for British and Canadian Divisions in WWI (Western Front) and WWII (Northwest Europe and Italy). In nearly every case the Divisions in WWII had higher casualty rates and spent more days in continuous combat. A few WWII Divisions saw more total days of combat in a year (or less) than WWI Divisions saw in four years.
I would assume a big part of the reason is that in WW1 the majority of deaths were caused by artillery. Men fell victim to shells continuously also in sectors and at times when there weren't any big battles going on. You could be at the front on and off for many months without ever actually seeing the enemy. Yet you or fellow soldiers were getting killed anyway.
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 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)
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...
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.
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 TH-cam. 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?
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 ... 😵💫
@@lws7394 not "almost", but still incredibly gruesome. What's more, the USSR went on to suffer from a general lack of food and famines, only to get worse with the Great Purge, and then WW2, killing more people in the USSR alone than the total deaths of WW1.
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
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
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
Exactly. Honestly this is not a great video. Its not the worst ive seen or anything, but it does the exact opposite that it claims it's setting out to do: debunking myths.
It also has a very apparent British bias.
5/10 video
Having seen this video, I am delighted that I was not lectured by Dan Snow.
WW1 artillery "had pinpoint accuracy”. It was impossible to point a gun to achieve pinpoint accuracy. Even if you could, the gun was not mounted on a rigid foundation that had a recoil mechanism acting directly along the barrel. Even if the gun was magically perfectly pointed, fitted with a directional recoil mechanism, and mounted on an immovable, solid foundation, the firing charges differed slightly from shell to shell, and barrel wear and progressive thermal expansion of the block and barrel caused the range to differ from that in gunnery tables. If WW1 artillery had had “pinpoint accuracy”, it would have been essential to change aim after each shot. Gunners fired shell after shell without doing so, because their guns peppered fairly large areas.
If the Central Powers had “won” the war, a German professor would have produced a video telling us “the war was successful” because it replaced British and French hegemony over many colonies with that of the Central Powers. A delusion persists that British imperialism was somehow good. This deception is aided by blame-shifting, e.g. when tackling Southern Africa a huge emphasis is placed on Afrikaner-supported apartheid (conveniently ignoring much support for it among English-speakers), yet a study of Southern Rhodesian history, (for example), shows how Britain broke the terms of the Rudd Concession that allowed settlers in, imposed white minority rule, butchered thousands during rebellions against British rule, kicked native people off the cooler, high-lying, relatively disease-free plateau into hot, low-lying, disease-ridden areas euphemistically called “tribal trustlands”, imposed racist land reservation, restricted education of native peoples, and imposed racist job reservation. The British got away with it because they did not use words such as “apartheid” and “bantustans”. In Southern Africa, the British imposed the notorious hut tax on villagers living in their own huts, to force them to work for peanuts in British-owned mines. Many migrant labourers who survived the mines, contracted appalling diseases and died without medical care in their home villages. The British repeated much the same pattern throughout Africa. British rule was exploitative.
Perhaps you imagine the British did not engage in genocidal massacres such as those of the Germans in South-West Africa (Namibia)? One need only consider the Battle of Omdurman, or Col. Graham’s massacre of the Xhosas on the Cape Colony’s eastern frontier to see this is false. British treatment of suspected Mau Mau guerrillas in Kenya was shocking. No doubt people of the Indian subcontinent and elsewhere know more. To claim WW1 was “successful” because one side “won” it, is fatuous.
Wars have extreme costs. Productive workers contribute to the economy. As long as non-military goods (such as delivery trucks) generate profit, they aid the economy. Almost all goods made for peaceful purposes repay the money invested in them, some many times over. The future economic value of people who are maimed and killed is zero. Many leave dependents who must be cared for. The money invested by a government in munitions, weapons, and vehicles of war that are rapidly used/destroyed is not repaid. After the war huge surplus stocks are wasted, e.g. Britain dumped vast quantities of shells and bombs in the Atlantic. Wars burn money that ought to be used to maintain and improve the quality of life of civilians. Many wars plant the seeds of future catastrophes. Wars are testament to the stupidity of political leadership. They are not clever or good. How many wars are “won”?
WW1 destroyed support for the middle-of-the-road Liberals in Britain, producing a stagnant stand-off between left (Labour) and right (Conservatives) that crippled British politics and the British economy for decades, culminating in the crisis of the 1970s. WW1 was not a political victory, but a disaster.
I have never encountered the myth that WW1 soldiers were starving. Tens of thousands of Russian soldiers did starve, but that’s a fact! Dan Snow says that soldiers received good meals, more than 4,000 calories per day. Perhaps they did, (at least on paper; Churchill’s Naval Brigades went very, very hungry). Civilians, the vast bulk of all populations, paid a huge price. One need only read books such as Vera Brittain’s “Testament of Youth” to realise that by 1917 many non-combatant Britons were starving and many did not have enough coal for winter heating. The situation in Germany, Russia, and other places was much worse. Civilians died in droves. Are civilian deaths due to hypothermia included in war statistics?
WW1 may not have maimed and killed the most people on the battlefield, but comparisons are silly. Where does one draw the lines around any war? WW1 cloaked Turkey’s genocide of the Armenians. WW1 precipitated the Communist Revolution in Russia, with war between the Whites and Reds, followed by millions perishing under Stalin. Many small wars and retributive atrocities occurred in the wake of WW1. It spread diseases globally, especially as combatants returned home. Malnourishment made people vulnerable to diseases. The H1N1 Influenza Pandemic of 1918-20 was directly linked to WW1. It killed at least 17 million, mostly young adults, starting with WW1 veterans. WW1 spread diseases such as typhus, malaria, smallpox, polio, whooping cough, and measles. Many died, especially children. Malaria naturally occurs as far north as Belgium and southern England. WW1 shell-hole ponds greatly increased malaria during and after WW1 and WW2. To rank WW1 in terms of lethality is silly. Who knows where to draw the lines?
To imply that WW1 was good because it produced technical advances is silly. As an engineer, I reject the spin-off argument. Engineers seek better ways to solve problems. That’s their job in peace and war. Is it better to improve technologies driven by commercial or military needs? Is it a good to have to measure the cost of technical advances in lives? Aircraft evolved rapidly before WW1. Were murderous dogfights necessary for further advances, or would R&D have proceeded without such killing? Did technical advances during WW1 secure victory, or did they merely produce temporary advantages until copied by the enemy?
According to www.westernfrontassociation.com/world-war-i-articles/british-medical-casualties-on-the-western-front-in-the-great-war-part-1-dealing-with-wound-related-trauma/, roughly 59% of British casualties were caused by shells and similar missiles, 39% by bullets, 2% by hand thrown explosives, and 1% by blades. The researchers say: “More exotic weapons such as flame-throwers and tanks produced relatively low numbers of casualties although they possessed a strong shock effect, particularly when first introduced.”
Was massive shelling (“shock-and-awe”) a leap forward? Shells were used in vast quantities by both sides and produced most casualties. Online statistics show that it took at least 100 shells to kill one soldier, although more were injured. The Germans built strong, deep bunkers in response to shelling, which warned them of impending offensives. It took little time for soldiers to race out of the bunkers to man the firing ramp and machine gun posts. Shell-holes offered cover, but shells destroyed drainage and churned the soil into thick, sticky mud, making it difficult to move quickly. Did massive shelling do the trick at the Battle of the Somme, 1 July 1916?
How was Germany really defeated on the battlefield? Gen. Erich Ludendorff, supreme commander of German forces, considered 8 August 1918, the first day of the Battle of Amiens, to be the day that led to Germany’s defeat. 456 British tanks trundled across No Man’s Land over a narrow front and through thick mist, accompanied by infantry. The tanks advanced six miles before the infantry was lagging too far behind to screen them. The tanks stopped and practical difficulties prevented follow-up efforts by the British and French armies. Instead, the new frontline was consolidated. It had not been overstretched, as usual. Casualties were few versus the ground gained. Luck had revealed a successful tactic. The idea was then repeated: brief, concentrated attacks wherever the Allies judged defence to be weakest, followed by immediate consolidation. The Allies rapidly nibbled forwards. Regardless of technology, nibbling could have replaced the long, grinding battles of previous years. A lack of recruits and the desperate conditions of civilians compounded Germany’s military situation, but Ludendorff later reversed his support for an armistice, thinking that Germany could defend a much-shortened Western front on foreign soil. The politicians disagreed, due to the internal disintegration of Germany and impending revolution.
“Some men enjoyed WW1.” Some men enjoyed war until bullets and shrapnel severed their spines. Many first-hand accounts tell me the vast majority of soldiers longed for leave and the end of war. Conditions on the Eastern Front were particularly bad, but comparison is fatuous. The Battle of the Masurian Lakes was dreadful. Gallipoli was terrible. Fighting up the Tigris and Euphrates to Baghdad was appalling. Fighting on the freezing plateaus and mountains of the Italian Front was misery. Fighting upon and beneath the sea was ghastly. Fighting in the burning Namibian desert was abysmal. “Some men enjoyed WW1”. Yes, a few men did enjoy WW1. What an important point!
You have raised some good points here. You too clearly have your biases just as this video does but yes Dan snow definitely made some ridiculous claims. Especially cherry picking quotes of psychos who liked the war, there are far more quotes showing how soldiers hated it.
I loved your summary, but you missed the point of the video. Just about all the "myths" are easily disputed as you have done, except for the poor leadership. The point of the video is to lump poor leadership along with these "myths." The length some entities will go to show that British troops were not lead by donkeys.
TLDR
I handed in essays shorter than this youtube comment
@@SuperHorseSense That's okay! Not everyone has a reasonable attention span. You really don't need to comment when you find yourself struggling! Just don't read it! I don't give a damn, really I don't!
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.
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.
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.
Japan killed a miniscule amount of Chinese compared to the prior revolutions and prior sins Japanese war. The west just looks at the casualty number as a catastrophic one but in Asia it's normal. The communist party following wwii killed more people than both sins Japanese wars combined.
Sorry, but you are wrong in regards of the last myth. It wasn't Hitler who said that the Treaty of Versailles was too harsh, it was every one in Germany, even the socialists! And there were even allies who thought that this treaty was too harsh, Churchill for example or the US government. And you should not forget that there has not been a peace treaty after World War II. The 2+4 Treaty in 1990 was made in place of a peace treaty.
It's a real hottake when you say this in germany even today. How the nazis took control and made the Holocaust possible is the core part of history in school during "high school".
But sadly, many do not understand what happened and confuse different things.
What most today believe is this: The Treaty of Versailles forced germany into an existential economic crises (with hyperinflation). Hitler then resolved this by activiting a war industry (and steel the money from the jews). These are all thesis i heard many times and so much is wrong about them.
Hyperinflation happened in the early 20s and was completely and kind of easily resolved during the republic time. There was a second, new economic crises, a deflation with mass unemployment, caused by the financial crash in the whole west (not by versailles). This was very difficult to resolve it happened slowly and not just because of the war industry. Hitler had a very capable finance minister, Hjalmar Schacht, who made the right decisions.
Yep. The treaty of Versailles is so important in the context of understanding why WWII started. Germany missed a payment and the French sent their North African military into Germany ffs and this guy says payment misses weren't enforced?
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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...
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.
I’d love to see you debate this with Dan Carlin!
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.
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".
Well said, Doc Adams. You are Spot On. Thank You!
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!)
"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.
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.
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.
It was however bloodier for Britain and France than WW2 was.
Yes and that's why people regard it as far, far bloodier. Comparing it to another recent and relatable war in Europe.
General Arthur Curry was the reason the Canadians did so well against Vimy Ridge in 1917 brilliant commander.
Aquaman?????!!!!!!????
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
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.
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
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"
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."
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.
Churchill left the front a few weeks before The Somme offensive, did he not? Good timing that!
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.
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."
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 %
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
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.
@@653j521 WW2 secretly helping the Brits while publicly condemning any of their citizens that went and fought
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.
You can quote statistics all you want Dan, but you only have to visit the WW1 cemeteries to know the full horror of that war. The upper classes might have experienced great losses but the ones that survived were cushioned by their more comfortable life styles. The ordinary soldier didn't get a fair deal after the war.
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.)
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.
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.
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
While a small percentage of an army becomes a casualty if you look at just the combat arms the percentage is a lot higher.
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.
I agree.
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.
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.
French loses were a bit closer to or higher than 2 million. If you count civilians and French colonies.
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.
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.
Thanks Dan, I particularly appreciate the information on the British trench rotation.
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…
Versailles WAS a harsh treaty....
The most militarily and economically powerful nation in Europe was stripped of its Navy, its merchant fleet, its colonies, its Army, had its financial assets taken, its industry crippled and enslaved, AND the big one that you failed to mention.... was subjected to a civilian targeted hunger blockade AFTER the Nov 11 Armistice until they signed the treaty of Versailles on 28 June 1919. During that time over 700k Germans died of starvation, an unknown number of people developed later issues due to malnourishment during the period, and in the end the Entente leaders wrongfully blamed Germany with starting the war. #extortion
It wasn't hard for the Nazis to leverage that to their own evil ends, it was all true.
Agreed. It was stupid too, because it wasn't the old elite (Kaiser, Ludendorff or Hindenburg) that had to sign the treaty. It was the worst possible start for the first german democracy.
@@Hwje1111 Opinions will vary... After 3 decades of reading on the topic and some research at the graduate level, I'm pretty much settled with my views. I can't articulate them to any advanced degree here but suffice it to say that I understand the topic very well.
You can't talk about treaties and reparations without settling the guilt issue, which article 231 most certainly did NOT. Your description of the "bad things" the Germans did fits the Brits, French, Russians, and even the Belgians. Back to the guilt issue that "might makes right" did't settle....
Recommend you get your hands on Luigi Albertini's work, or at least look it up. It remains the authority on the topic as acknowledged by pretty much everyone in the know.
@@mitchrichards1532 stop it with this both sides crap. The Germans had made it extremely obvious that they wanted to do as much damage to the enemy as possible. Not only did they commit horrible atrocities against Poles, belgians, serbs and French, but they never denied them. Infact there is evidence that all the photos taken were taken BY THEM because they wanted to use it as intimidation against their enemies, like how cartels distribute stuff films today.
@@mitchrichards1532 The popular history consensus these days seems to be that the Versailles treaty should either have been more lenient or even more harsh. As it was, it humiliated Germany but didn't cripple it, which both left the door wide open for revanchist sentiments while simultaneously making it possible for a future regime to act on those sentiments.
@@blubbson Agreed... It was a garbage compromise that produced more garbage.
The US and Wilson's approach was far more lenient and objective. I find that ironic since Wilson allowed US corporations and banks to get so tied to the Entente war effort that the US had to get involved to protect its financial interests. Had the US stayed truly neutral, the war would have ended in 1916 with a stalemate/status quo truce.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
#10 is debatable.
Versailles probably wasn't the harshest of treaties, but it wasn't the smartest one. Germany was put on their knees, financially and psychologically. Destruction was huge, and the amount of men deployed meant their economy was destroyed. Besides that, it humiliated both Italy and Japan. England and France emerged as the two last empires (since Austro-Hungary, Ottoman and Prussia collapsed, Spain, Portugal and Sweden were not militarily relevant, and Russia was "rebuilding"), and they sure acted like it.
Not smart in a long-term perspective, I fully agree The treaty was discussed, at least for Austria, in a train wagon in a forest of Compiegne and the winners got out of their way to humiliate Austria - and Austria had no say at the table, in our history classes we are told that anything we had to say - we had to write down on a paper and shove under the door; one goal was to keep the defeated enemy from ever gaining enough strength to cause more problems by minimizing their industry. one reason why, after WW2 Germany and Austria were not bombed back into the Stone Ages and then kept that way with sanctions was that people understood that crippling a nation like that only led to people like Hitler gaining power by giving a humiliated people an outlet for their frustration. In our history classes, it is often pointed out that for Austria (can only say about my home country, not Germany) WW1 never really ended and the years in between up to WW2 were only a cease-fire. The situation was so bad that we had a suicide rate of over 30% and that is a conservative estimate. If you have nothing - well, then you have nothing to lose either and that makes people desperate and dangerous. You either have to eradicate a defeated enemy so completely that the next generation is disconnected from what happened, or you have to make sure that they have little interest in risking their lives being destroyed. One 'successful' (and take that as sarcasm, please) example of winners destroying opposing nations is how the USA treated the indigenous population.
My jaw dropped down when he only concentrated on Germany - and ignored Austria. Because we lost a lot of terrain and it upended our economy because a lot of our food-producing sources were not in what was left, Vienna was much too big suddenly and hard to support. People in the rural parts were starving as well. I have accounts in my family where none of the men came home and left children and wives so struggle, my great-grandfather fell in Italy and my grandfather was born June 1918 - was born after his father had already died. My grandmother (born 1926) remembers having to collect pine cones in the forest to make soup out of, boil them, and she remembered that cabbage was an absolute delicacy. '"And then Hitler came, and I was sent to a resort so I could recuperate (from severe malnutrition and related illnesses like anemia), we had to eat! The rest of my siblings survived!" Hitler bent the narrative to his purpose, no doubt about it, and other countries were suffering as well - but Hitler did NOT invent the resentment people felt towards Britain, the US and France!
"Germany was put on their knees" only for a short time. There was continual renegotiating and Germany didn't actually pay that much. The German economy in the 1920's was not the basket case people think it was. There was a lot of American money going in to the German economy. It was later when the USA went into depression and wanted it's loans paid that Germany went into a tail spin. "Destruction was huge", yes, but not in Germany. Apart from East Prussia it wasn't invaded. Northern France and Belgium was where much of the destruction was. Germany wasn't split up, so apart from now not being an Empire, territorially it was pretty much the same as after unification. It lost land it had formerly taken from Denmark and France and lost land to the formation of Poland, but it was substancially still intact. Japan actually came out of the war with chunks of China and apart, from not being treated as an equal, didn't do badly out of the war. Italy lost a lot but it's tragedy was that it didn't get more out of it. Britain lost much of it's wealth, basically it's gold was put on ships to the USA, as well as many dead. France had huge losses both in men and material. Northern France, an important economic region, was devastated. All participants faced the same problems of men being deployed, so I don't see how Germany was special in that case. Much of the war carried on after 1918 in other areas like eastern europe and what was left of the Ottoman Empire. These other spin-off wars carried on for years. And, in some cases, continue.
but you forgot about the 15 000 cities and towns that were wiped out by the germans
the hundreds of bridges and mines that were purposely blown up to weaken france
the billions upon billions worth of loot the germans plundered during the occupation of almost a quarter of the country
the tens of thousands of french civilians reduced to slavery in work "camps" and the tens of thousands who died of starvation
and most importantly the 5.7 millions dead and wounded which represented more than 15% of the entire french population
but you forgot about the 15 000 cities and towns that were wiped out by the germans
the hundreds of bridges and mines that were purposely blown up to weaken france
the billions upon billions worth of loot the germans plundered during the occupation of almost a quarter of the country
the tens of thousands of french civilians reduced to slavery in work "camps" and the tens of thousands who died of starvation
and most importantly the 5.7 millions dead and wounded which represented more than 15% of the entire french population
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.
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.
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
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.
Dan Snow reminds me of his Dad at Election time when he’s in full flow. Great vid.
It’s often forgotten that average daily casualties of the British army were higher during the WW2 Normandy campaign than at the battles of the Somme or Paschendale.
The losses in Bomber Command amounted to a 45% fatality (NOT casualty) rate, and the U Boat arm, a 75% fatality rate.
I will talk as a French
The French population was severely hit by this war, even more than the ww2 or the Napoleonic Wars.
And the scars are still visible today.
Each village has a stone with the names of the ww1 deads. Really shocking when a village of 500 inhabitants has more than 200 names on the stone.
And this, because almost all the men (adults, sometimes even younger) were mobilized. Everyone had at least one death in their family, and even more survivors. At least 3 of what I know of my ancestors are dead.
And this largely explains the French defeat in 1940. The First World War was not that long ago, and absolutely no one wanted to see the war again. The French and British governments among others wanted at all costs to avoid reliving a war like this, which is why they let Germany carry on in its military ventures, hoping to avoid war.
France has not really had a new army since, and has remained in a defensive position, hoping to deter Germany. Taken by surprise by its bypass through Belgium, continuing the fight would only have led to a massacre and an inevitable defeat.
We can add that more French soldiers died during ww1 than us soldiers in the entire American history.
To finish, a brief presentation of the French casualties. Skip the beginning, go anywhere in the video, it takes 5 seconds
th-cam.com/video/1Ir8fp_Buhg/w-d-xo.htmlsi=63_cZaLVzLBYelmH
Not to mention the wounded and the fact that parts of northern France lay in ruins and people in Paris had two shocks / fears from the Germans getting close and being bombarded by a railway gun…
That being said - the trauma from losing the war and so many people (including many children dying from starvation and sickness) and then the average joe losing all his life savings in hyper inflation on Germany can also not be underestimated. Not to mention the many big victories until almost the end of the war giving people the wrong impression of the military situation.
My great grandfather became a right wing revanchist because he lost everything after WW1 and a supporter of peace after WW2… he even participated in reunions of WW1 veterans until his death but only after ww2.
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.
That was not the only one!
This is not his first poorly researched, erroneous video.
I think I will spare myself his very amateurish contributions in future.
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.
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 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
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.
If you walk around the towns and villages of Great Britain and bother to even look at the rememberance monuments to the two world wars of the 20th century, you will see that the numbers listed from 1914-18 are almost always much higher than those listed in 1939-45. Both terrible of course and don't reflect the numbers world-wide but that is how we measure it here in terms of our own loss.
Russia did most of the fighting and dying in the European theater.
This is definitely from and anglo perspective. Some of these "myths" are true depending on the country. France and russia both had mutinys because their leadership was so bad for instance.
Well done. This video featuring a British historian, made in English, is talking from a British perspective.
@@ErwinPommel he never actually says it's from a british perspective. He very clearly says he is debunking myths, as if its broad across all.
so did britian. it was just smaller and much covered up.
@@MercShameNot really
@@balabanasireti elaborate
What you need to take into account is WW1 was just over 4 years so the death toll in short time was horrific.
I thought that I understood WWI but this was an illuminating reality check on what really happened at the end. Thank you!
I think the last one about the treaty of Versailles is a bit of a faulty comparison and too simplistic.
On the one hand, you're obviously right, the sourrounding peace treatiese were all a lot harsher. But were also made under different circumstances.
They were usually made with utterly deafeated and invaded nations. To the people of the losing countries it was clear that they lost.
WWI barely took place on German soil. Germany was still fighting in other countries when it surrendered. After already having defeated Russia in the east. But it still lost territories inside it's border.
AND what was ommitted in this video, the Peace treaty completley put the blame on Germany for the war. Another humiliation.
These things combined made a not actually that harsh peace treaty into the tool Hitler could use to get into power.
I think a better peace treaty to compare it to would have been that after the napoleonic wars.
That peace treaty was about meeting at eye-level wirth a defeated, but not destroyed enemy and making sure peace lasts. And comared to that it was indeed harsh, because lasting peace wasn't really the goalin Versailles.
The Treaty was neither harsh enough nor forgiving enough, is how I've heard it described. A harsher treaty would have prevented German rearmament, for example, and a more forgiving one might not have led to the resentment and nationalism that fed the NSDAP's rise to power.
To be fair,their carte blanche support of Austria-Hungary really was the precipitation of a local squabble into a global one. Germany believed it would win a quick war like 1870 and get it's place in the sun. If it wasn't for German agitation the war wouldn't have occurred the way it did
@@Trebor74 Again, I think that's too simplistic.
We all know the rough sequence of actions that caused the war in a literal sense.
But I think for WWI that doesn't really cut it. WWI was a conflict between Colonial Empires with Belgium and Serbia caught in the middle. It wasn't a war between one good side and one bad side.
The cause for the war was more than a decade of agitation, sabre-rattling and conflicting imperial ambitions from all sides. It could have and should have been prevented 10 years before it started.
It's a bit like looking at a bunch of kids who fight and saying the one who hit first is at fault. We wouldn't do that. We'd want to know what lead to the punch to put it into a proper context.
@@KityKatKiller I agree, WAY too simplistic. There were several large players maneuvering and jostling by 1914, and a number of old grudges being held, with scores to be settled. There are far more insightful videos detailing the various conflicts leading up to WW1.
@@lucyj8204 it would not stopped rearmament, well before Hitler the process was already happening in Switzerland, Sweden and USSR in secret
I don't know of any direct ancestors that served in WW1 but my great grandmother's 4 brothers did. 3 served at Gallipoli and survived the war. The only one to die didn't serve in Gallipoli because he was rejected from enlisting because of a lazy eye. He later enlisted after they relaxee the criteria and died in France in 1916 on a night patrol.
In discussing the relative harshness of treaties, it's also worth remembering the German post-war plans for Western Europe. France was to pay huge war debts, disarm its fortresses, and cede territory. The Benelux countries were to be either annexed outright (Luxembourg) or forced into coercive economic relations with Germany in a German sphere of influence. The Allied Powers were to be forced to surrender African colonies to Germany, too. A German peace would have been a brutal affair.
Thank you for mentioning Arthur Currie - a personal hero for me.
Off to a terrible start right away. That which was used to debunk Myth #1 is itself a myth. The math here is WAY off. It's amazing that you factored in percentage of population as a way to debunk a myth, but you didn't factor in length of conflict. The Taiping Rebellion killed as many as 30M people, but it lasted 3.5X longer than WW1. Conversely, WW1 killed 20M people but was only 4 years. In order for the Taiping Rebellion to reach the violence of WW1, it would have needed to kill 70M people. More than twice its actual number. Civil wars are sort of an unfair comparison, because it's people of the same nationality killing each other. In the American Civil War, only about 300,000 actual Americans were killed. The Confederacy willingly eschewed thier U.S. citizenship, so they shouldn't count as Americans. FAR more ACTUAL Americans died in the 6-8 months of WW1 that they saw than all of the U.S. Civil War. The Civil War would have needed to kill nearly 900,000 to reach WW1 levels. 900K is more than the death total of both sides combined.
Not to mention China didn’t have a working census at the time…
These are rough estimates with an agenda behind it…
Same reason why we have no clue how many Chinese died in WW2 and yet official Chinese numbers keep rising almost 80 years after the end of the war…
As a fellow historian, your presentation is truly inspiring ! thank you
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.
I think a big problem for me with this video is that there was an almost complete disregard for the other countries who fought in WWI. Countries like Newfoundland, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand entered the war to help Britain way before the U.S. but those countries were disregarded or not even mentioned.
My problem with this video is the "myths" are easily debunked except for those that deal with "lions lead by donkeys," and a "rich mans war, but a poor mans fight." In order to debunk those myths they mention Australian, and Canadian leadership. They can't say anything else because then it will just show how poor English leadership was, and the entire point of the video is to show that England had great leadership
Thank you for pissing on the graves of the millions. A true master of the art of trivialization!
Dan in my opinion you are a brilliant historian! In fact my favourite. you explain history in simple and easy narratives and give a wealth of information with out all the waffle. Respect!
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.
The Churchill bit is BOLLOCKS.
Leave it to the British to present a Winston Churchill anecdote as fact in a myth bursting video.
I knew junior officers had a high casualty rate but the figures for generals was surprising. Really informative vid.
Number 10 is just historically inaccurate. German reparations were not initially limited to their ability to pay. German reparations were made in three categories of bonds and only the third category of bonds was indeterminate. The first two were absolute.
4:35 - That is true, but Americans died disproportionately at the end of the war. Due to their inexperience of fighting trench warfare compared to other nations.
Relevant to Myths 1 & 6, there is hard data that compares casualty rates and number of days in combat/close contact with enemy for British and Canadian Divisions in WWI (Western Front) and WWII (Northwest Europe and Italy). In nearly every case the Divisions in WWII had higher casualty rates and spent more days in continuous combat. A few WWII Divisions saw more total days of combat in a year (or less) than WWI Divisions saw in four years.
I would assume a big part of the reason is that in WW1 the majority of deaths were caused by artillery. Men fell victim to shells continuously also in sectors and at times when there weren't any big battles going on. You could be at the front on and off for many months without ever actually seeing the enemy. Yet you or fellow soldiers were getting killed anyway.
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.
I think the quote 'lions led by donkeys' should refer to the power-hungry sociopaths who initiated the war, rather than the miliary leaders.
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.