"The great misconceptions of the First World War" Topic

Its not a bad article ,though I am aware of most of them from the recent books that came out on the centenary

link

The most crucial one for me is the issue of the Russian mobilization. Both Clarke and McMeekin considered it crucial, and it seems they might had misread the archives, or taken the German view of what the "preparatory to war" state actually meant.

Still for me the assassinations of Stolypin and Franz Ferdinand reign supreme as unknown factors (as in the assassinations had a massive impact on the dove-hawk balance in both Russia and Austria).

KT

Heywood, the author of the Russian mobilization piece is a notorious Russian apologist. He has claimed, for example, that the Russo-Japanese War was entirely the fault of the Japanese. And his insistence in this article on "German war guilt" is telling.

One of the biggest myths of WW1 is "poor, innocent Serbia". While possibly necessary for Allied propaganda during the war, it should have been consigned to the "dustbin of history" long ago.

Serbia under the Karageorges was as malevolent as modern Syria under Assad. It was attempting to destabilize every one of its neighbors, not just Austria-Hungary, but also Italy, Roumania, Bulgaria, Greece, and Turkey, in hopes of picking up the pieces when one (or more) of them smashed. And the Russians and French were covertly aiding this strategy.

I find the revisionist trend to characterize WWI as "just another war" to not only be inaccurate, but fraught with their own prejudices. When people talk about the horror of WWI, they mean the trench warfare, especially on the Western front.
Unlike previous wars, the numbers of men fighting in a relatively compact area, with casualties for each attempted advance that would dwarf those of previous wars, is what made WWI so bad. Couple that with the sheer fruitlessness of the gains (if any) for the losses, and one can see how generations came to regard WWI as they do. Its almost as if
the author missed the difference between pikes, matchlocks and muskets on one hand and exploding shells and machine guns. As if the switch to drab uniforms was just a style choice and that open order was unnecessary.

the heavy hand of nationalism and tradition can also be seen in these revisions. The authors show a marked distaste for leftists of all kinds, and anyone who would suggest that WWI did indeed involve elites sending their lessers off to die in droves for questionable reasons (ie: millions dead just to maintain the balance of power? to hold onto colonies?).
WWI deserves its place as an example of particular horror in war.

A good article, whose conclusions I came to a long time ago.

Serbian intelligence services sponsored the assassination of the Archduke. The intelligence services were a loose cannon, like the Pakistani SSI.

WW1 is in that interesting area of history, where its recent enough to be extensively documented first-hand, but far enough away to create mythology and legend.

That's easy for you to say, young fella. I knew two WWI vets, one who fought in the AEF and an Italian guy from Trieste who fought for the Habsburgs and was captured by the Russians. Not that far away for me.

Disagree with number 9, but for a different reason. By March 1917, both France and England we essentially bankrupt and had no more credit to buy from the US. The war may have been slow to be joined by US soldiers, but the revived lines of credit kept the armies in the field until then.

Pan Marek. which author? There are a couple.

Yes, if there are specific people who should be considered the evil characters in the outbreak of WW1 it is Apis,Hotzendorf, and the cabal of Russian politicians that overthrew Kokotsov. There are other second order criminals (pardon my pun and do not show it to my advisor), but these are the first order.

In a weird way old man Franz-Joseph bears some blame. If he was not so stuck up with Franz-Ferdinand's wife, Franz-Ferdinand would never had befriended and brought into a position of power Conrand von Hotzendorf (one of the few people that treated Sophie as a human being). Hotzendorf is the arch hawk, a truly malevolent presence (Again pardon me, and do not show to my adviser), demanding war almost every year he held his positions. By 1914 Franz was tired of him and intended to force him out of the military. A certain Serbian student intervened.

I'll add two more :

1) WWI was run by careless stupid thugs while WWII was run by brilliant generals.

Total victory was just one Rommel-like manoeuvre away, too bad they only had the worst, most stupid generals in history.

2) The allies were at their worst at Versailles, while a German victory would have been lenient, benevolent and would have made Europe stronger and more peaceful.

Germany had been starved to death, lost millions of lives, and also imposed Brest-Litovsk on the Russians, but somehow they would be fair to France and Britain and usher in a new golden age.

The winners write the history books. The carefully cultivated meme that Germany was exclusively guilty for WW1 is the convenient smokescreen behind which all the other culprits have been able to hide.

Strictly my opinion, of course.

B