"First World War killed one million more soldiers than..." Topic

…records show – and one in FIVE injured troops suffered shell-shock.

"One million more soldiers may have died in the First World War than first believed while survivors left with crippling shell-shock were also severely underestimated, leading academics said today.

Antoine Prost, Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Paris, says that in the chaos after the Great War governments, including Britain's, produced conservative death figures.
Professor Prost also says errors in casualty lists and the vast number of missing soldiers means ten million probably perished in trench warfare between 1914 and 1918, not nine million as first thought…"
Full article here.
link

Amicalement
Armand

Another million, or less, either way it was the worst war ever waged. And the stupidest for starting in the first place. A national inferiority complex on the one side, and an equally irrational need for revenge on the other (for 1870 and the enemy marching through Paris, etc.) Then at the end an even more stupid "treaty" that beggared Germany and destroyed its economy, precipitating the Great Depression and WW2. Much will be said this year on these topics….

Worse than World War 2? I don't think so.

See also the Taiping rebellion.

Much worse than WW2.

Another million, or less, either way it was the worst war ever waged. And the stupidest for starting in the first place. A national inferiority complex on the one side, and an equally irrational need for revenge on the other (for 1870 and the enemy marching through Paris, etc.) Then at the end an even more stupid "treaty" that beggared Germany and destroyed its economy, precipitating the Great Depression and WW2. Much will be said this year on these topics….

You seem to be blaming France for starting WW2 , which isn't the case. France was invaded by Germany on 3rd August 1914 so she had no choice other than to defend herself. As to Alsace and Lorraine , France would have liked the provinces back but not at the expense of a war with Germany : in fact at the end of 1913 relations between France and Germany were better than they had been for years.
I also thought that it was the Wall Street Crash of 1929 that precipitated the Great Depression rather than the Treaty of Versailles – maybe I am missing something ? The Treaty of Versailles was harsh but the victorious Allies wanted to prevent Germany from starting another war that killed millions of people – you have to look at it in context. And Germany had imposed equally harsh terms on France after the end of the Franco-Prussian war.

Much worse than WW2.

Not if you were a soldier or citizen of the USSR. Or Jewish.

Or a civilian generally in WW2. WW1 had a far higher proportion of military deaths as Total War was still a bit of a novelty in 1914-18.

Both wars were somewhat unpleasant for everyone involved, and one hopes that the era of nationalism fuelled mass industrial warfare is over.

WWI gets bad press because of several reasons.

1) There is no clear aggressor. The Kaiser didn't set out to attack Europe or any such plan, most nations did have laundry list of wrongs to right and territorial aspirations, yet nobody really had planned to go to war at that point, but nobody was going to shirk away from it either in case it might change the balance of power in their favour. WWI can as easily be blamed on opportunism and short term vision as anything else.

2) Lots of people were killed over a narrow stretch of land. This happens when major European nations squeeze a few million men between the North Sea and Switzerland. Casualty rates in Russia were of the same order where such trench warfare was much rarer.

3) Nobody pulled the plug or wanted to negotiate an armistice. Why should they ? Nobody may have been winning, but ironically nobody was losing. Germany had captured a huge chunk of France, most of Belgium, they were in a position of strength, they certainly weren't going to give up that advantage, while the French may have lost their coal and industrial base in Northern France, they were otherwise undefeated, ditto for the UK, calling a peace at any point would have turned to the advantage of Germany and people would have asked why end the war if there was still a chance to defeat the other side ? Politicians would have been blamed as cowards.

4) The end of the war brought huge changes, but did little to restore peace in Europe. The Great War ended in an armistice, which left many Germans to believe they had indeed been stabbed in the back by the politicians. The economy of most nations was in shambles, politics were high-strung with radical new movements emerging and the 1929 crash precipitated events towards putting the radicals into power. WWII, by contrast ended on a high note and there was a post-war economic boom.

But as was said before, the destruction of WWII was far more widespread, civilians were targeted and suffered as never before. Oddly enough German troops on the Eastern Front spent almost all of their time in the front line trenches because there were no reserves to rotate them and spent far more time in trenches than their fathers did in WWI. Yes, there were such things as gas, which didn't happen in WWII, but then again whole cities were firebombed with horrible results …

5) The whole "Donkeys and Lions", war poets and Blackadder goes Forth popular myth.

A few thoughts:

World War II *was* World War I, Part II. The 21st Century will see the first half of the 20th century as 'The Great European Civil War', or 'The Suicide of the European Empires'.

It only took 52 years from 1914-45. Another 20 years for de-colonization to complete. Not long at all compared with the Peloponesian War or the collapse of the Anasazi or the Classical Maya. Industrial Warfare speeds up the destruction.

The belligerants outside of Europe, Japan and the United States, did rather well out of The Great War, but all of the European empires were wrecked; even the ones that survived (UK, France, Italy) were hollowed out economically and demographically.

The US was arguably the only country that won WWII, because so little of that war was fought on American territory. The destruction of WWII was much worse than WWI, because the later war consumed so much territory – Europe was basically shelled and bombed flat from the Urals to the Channel, had to rebuild from rubble. There was mass starvation in many regions that would have been much worse without food relief from the western hemisphere.

I suspect that the psychological damage, PTSD on a mass scale, contributed a lot to the sheer evil destructiveness of World War II. Certainly the German experience of mass starvation enforced by the strategic blockade led directly to the Nazi policy of exterminating 30 million Slavs and taking their farmland and food. Oh, and as long as we're at it, let's finish off the Jews too. See Taylor Bloodlands.

1) There is no clear aggressor.

Austria? Determined to deal with the Serbian "problem". If they had not escalated their demands, Germany and Russia would have not been drawn in, so France would not have got involved.
Did not help that Kaiser Wilhelm was rather paranoid about British naval supremacy.

Well, the Serbs did plan and organize the death of the Crown Prince.

If Turkey had assassinated the Prince of Wales in 1914, I think Britain would have gone to war with them.

The view of no clear aggressor is that no country really wanted to put the work in to avoid the conflict.

"World War II *was* World War I, Part II. The 21st Century will see the first half of the 20th century as 'The Great European Civil War', or 'The Suicide of the European Empires'."

Or the logical extension of the wars of national liberation of the early nineteeth century, or possibly the 'Wars of German Unification 1864-1989'.

Anyway, whichever way you cut it, industrialisation plus massive population growth plus nationalism were never going to have a very happy outcome. The big surprise of WW1 for everyone was that it wasn't over in a few months.

Is it possible for someone to hijack a post? I just wrote a serious response to Oddball's comments. I have just checked back on the thread and my post has been replaced by a total load of rubbish (hence the deleted post above). Who is the clown taking over my posts?
Editor- need your help here

Try again!

Oddball commented: "Well, the Serbs did plan and organize the death of the Crown Prince."

Isn't that a bit like saying "The Arab states in the Middle East planned and organised the "Twin Towers" massacre?" It was a terrorist group of ultra-nationalists who supplied the weapons for the assassination. As for "planning"-that did not work out too well. It was a matter of ill luck (For the Archduke and his lady) that Princip happened to be making his way home along the street where their car was being turned round.

As with any war, it's always difficult to pin the tag of aggressor, but I think there is an argument that if Austria had not annexed Bosnia in the first place AND had been less aggressive in pursuing their ultimatum, then WW1, as we know it, might not have happened. I think the Austrians were banking on Russia holding back from giving Serbia military support, as they had in 1908.

I do not absolve the Serbians. Their successes in The Balkan War had probably made them over confident in their military capability and there had been a fair amount of bluster about what they would do to Austro-Hungary, but the fact that they were quick to offer to meet all of Austria's initial demands after the assassination suggests that they knew they were in a weak situation.

I think war would probably have come anyway, Britain and German were on a collision course through the imperial ambitions of both countries,fuelled by Kaiser Wilhelm's jealousy of Britain, but it may well have been more of a naval war.

I always like an informed discussion, and I think you all make good points. I especially agree with Patrick and Zippy. I think it's amazing that everyone made an intelligent observation without ranting…too bad the powers that be couldn't do it in 1914…I might have know my grandfather

"World War II *was* World War I, Part II. The 21st Century will see the first half of the 20th century as 'The Great European Civil War', or 'The Suicide of the European Empires'."

Or the logical extension of the wars of national liberation of the early nineteeth century, or possibly the 'Wars of German Unification 1864-1989'.

You made me think there, Martin. Let's hope those wars of the 19th century are finally over.

WWI was tragic. Real diplomacy could have limited the spread. I blame Russia

Europe had been fighting major wars since the 1500's. Most often to prevent the likes of France or Spain from becoming dominant. The Congress of Vienna stopped such major wars for nearly a century (it didn't stop conflicts, but prevented more protracted pan-European conflicts)

WWI was a continuation on a greater scale of a five centuries-long conflict, pausing to move into WWII and ended with the conclusion that the old system of waging war for some territorial gains, plunder and war reparations was not really getting anybody anywhere.

Steaming Dave. It was probably the infamous "TMP bug" which sometimes eats your post and substitutes someone else's from elsewhere on the site. Sometimes the results are very funny.

Hmm I thought Europe had been at war since.. forever really. I mean Rome v Gaul, Britain, Normans v Saxons, Danes and angles, sub roman British, Welsh border wars, Scottish invasion, European wars between pre German states, wars against other religions, crusades, fighting in Spain against the moors, the hundred years war, the wars in Hungary,

And then we get to the fifteen hundreds.

I think that Patrick might have been talking about wars to preserve the balance of power in Europe rather than wars of conquest. These can be argued to have begun in 1519 when Charles V became ruler of both Spain and it's empire but also the Holy Roman Emperor and Archduke of Austria. The King of France ( Francis I ) was even prepared to make an alliance with the Turks to fight against the Spanish.

Etranger, thanks for the info. I can do without "post eating bugs" , got some stuff in my shed to sort those b*****rs out!