Support NeoGAF

[jstripes]

Not knowing how WWI started is probably one of the lesser pieces of misinformation. The bigger ones would be thinking that WWI was just the Western Front and that the Western Front was only static trench warfare. Those feed into the perception that nothing significant happened during the war therefore there's nothing worth studying in it. The reality is that not only was WWI extremely historically significant but that every major modern military weapon (with the exception of the nuclear bomb and missile) was either pioneered or brought to the forefront during it.

Aircraft, automobiles, tanks, machine guns, artillery, modern tactics, chemical warfare.

You're right. WWI was their first large-scale use, and no one knew what to do with them.

 

[Dabookerman]

It's not suppressed, it's disputed, you can find all sorts of sources saying wildly varying things. Some sources claim the British deliberately exported food and didn't care about starvation, some claim that the British burned food stocks of starving Bengalis, while others paint a more complicated picture.

India-wide food production was unusually low that year, but it actually was clear neither to the people at the time or to historians today what the levels of production were because the accuracy of production statistics could be favourably described as poor. Trade barriers were voted into existence in 1942 by local Indian governments (under powers granted to them by the British which gave them more autonomy in the '30s), which they then refused to repeal in 1943 which blocked trade from the surplus areas to the famine areas. The easy access routes to Bengal itself were problematic, since the up-river trade was how most of it came in, and many of these boats had been removed or requisitioned because of the imminent Japanese invasion. The only easy way in was rail lines, which were used, and some food deliveries were recorded in the period, but not enough came in. Direct resupply via the ocean was "technically" possible, but for reference, the Japanese Navy was like 70 miles from Calcutta in the time period we're talking about.

I've seen Indian nationalist sources say that Churchill personally was responsible for 7 million deaths in Bengal, thus making him worse than Hitler. Other estimates put the death toll at 1.5 million. Others at anywhere between that and 4 million. Real talk answer here is I don't fucking know who is to blame exactly for what and who could have done more. It wasn't the only Indian famine in Bengal in WWII, but the one in 40-41 got dealt with fairly well. It kind of paints a different narrative in the full context, I don't think Churchill is personally to blame, at least not directly in terms of him being able to stop it but consciously, maliciously unwilling.

Oh for sure. In this particular instance, there are widely disputing factors at play here, and it would be a mistake to just settle on the most convenient answer.

However, and since this is veering a bit off topic, but i do wonder what else, other than WW2, is Churchill venerated for? I don't particularly consider a supremely colonialist mindset a "positive" trait, and his quote stating that he "hates Indians and consider them beastly" doesn't particularly endear him any further.

To me, he comes across as someone that was very good at war, and was the right leader at the right time.

 

[Irminsul]

I have to say that in Germany the relationship towards WWI is pretty weird. Two years ago, there was quite a bit of stuff produced on it (as, e.g., the highly recommended 14 -- diaries of the Great War), but far too many of them just saw it as the first step on the path to Hitler. Sure, it's a pretty popular opinion that WWI somehow directly lead to WWII, but it's not as if 100 of 100 possible timelines starting in 1918 necessarily end up with Nazi Germany. It also lessens the impact that WWI had on many aspects of the world we currently live in if you "just" talk about Hitler. But alas, I guess that being the German perspective isn't so surprising.

Most of the friendly ribbing you have from French to Germans are from that time too.

Eh, I'm not so sure about this, because I don't think there was a lot of friendly ribbing going on between France and Germany, neither before nor after WWI. Actually, I'd say that banter is a pretty recent development starting well after WWII. You guys being the "Erbfeind" ("hereditary enemy") didn't change all that much between the late 1860s and the end of WWII, dunno about the French perspective on this. The Treaty of Versailles obviously didn't help, but Frenchmen could rightfully claim crowning the German emperor in Versailles wasn't a nice thing to do either. And so on.

Or did you mean friendly ribbing going on now references WWI? Maybe so from the French side, but from the German side I think it's mostly about WWII, and yes, that's not really "politically correct" even/especially in Germany (I don't like that term, but it's pretty spot-on here). You can't really ask "Why do French tanks have a rear-view mirror?

Spoiler

To see the front line.

" about WWI. And yes, of course these are mostly stupid "surrender" jokes, but I seriously doubt any German would actually think the French only lost wars. Most Germans like France very much (myself included, but I seriously have to learn French properly) so I hope that when if the EU fails, we can at least have some kind of Charlemagne II

You should also keep in mind that Germany was a demilitarized nation until Hitler decided to ignore WWI treaties, so all their resources were build in a very short amount of time, but the Wehrmacht wasn't at that point at that time. Had Europe allied up right there and then, the chances of the history that we know not having happened are quite good.

You may be right with a swift response greatly shortening WWII, but Germany only officially was demilitarised. Unofficially, they very much had an army started and trained with the Russians, by far exceeding what was allowed in the Treaty of Versailles.

 

[Molemitts]

However, and since this is veering a bit off topic, but i do wonder what else, other than WW2, is Churchill venerated for? I don't particularly consider a supremely colonialist mindset a "positive" trait, and his quote stating that he "hates Indians and consider them beastly" doesn't particularly endear him any further.

To me, he comes across as someone that was very good at war, and was the right leader at the right time.

Before WWII Churchill wasn't seen very positively by many mainstream Conservatives as he was a strong opponent of Appeasement. He also served as chancellor in the 20's and saw the return of the Gold standard, which ended being awful for the economy. He did lose the 1945 election, so I believe many at the time saw him purely as a wartime leader.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Oh for sure. In this particular instance, there are widely disputing factors at play here, and it would be a mistake to just settle on the most convenient answer.

However, and since this is veering a bit off topic, but i do wonder what else, other than WW2, is Churchill venerated for? I don't particularly consider a supremely colonialist mindset a "positive" trait, and his quote stating that he "hates Indians and consider them beastly" doesn't particularly endear him any further.

To me, he comes across as someone that was very good at war, and was the right leader at the right time.

Perhaps a British member can shed more light on this for you, but as an Australian I'm not aware of Churchill being celebrated outside of the context of being an effective wartime leader. He was associated with the first world war as First Lord of the Admiralty until he got booted out for the Gallipoli fuckup. So on that front he wouldn't be overly popular here.

 

[Dabookerman]

Before WWII Churchill wasn't seen very positively by many mainstream Conservatives as he was a strong opponent of Appeasement. He also served as chancellor in the 20's and saw the return of the Gold standard, which ended being awful for the economy. He did lose the 1945 election, so I believe many at the time saw him purely as a wartime leader.

That's what I've always thought.

Perhaps a British member can shed more light on this for you, but as an Australian I'm not aware of Churchill being celebrated outside of the context of being an effective wartime leader. He was associated with the first world war as First Lord of the Admiralty until he got booted out for the Gallipoli fuckup. So on that front he wouldn't be overly popular here.

Being British myself, he's revered pretty heavily. Many criticisms aimed towards him are quite often shut down. In 2002 there was a major Greatest Briton Ever poll in which he topped it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Greatest_Britons

He's probably one of the only Primeministers to be remembered prior to Thatcher for the most part.

It's interesting because when you think of great American presidents, my top 2 would be FDR and Lincoln. With Lincoln he lead and won during the civil war and abolished slavery.
FDR did an insane amount during his term as president. Even though he had a few dark marks to his name, it was more poor decisions rather than malice or hatred of a group of people. Although he also had Eleanor, who was an incredible human. (Yes I finished watching the Roosevelts a few days ago!)

 

[Mael]

I have to say that in Germany the relationship towards WWI is pretty weird. Two years ago, there was quite a bit of stuff produced on it (as, e.g., the highly recommended 14 -- diaries of the Great War), but far too many of them just saw it as the first step on the path to Hitler. Sure, it's a pretty popular opinion that WWI somehow directly lead to WWII, but it's not as if 100 of 100 possible timelines starting in 1918 necessarily end up with Nazi Germany. It also lessens the impact that WWI had on many aspects of the world we currently live in if you "just" talk about Hitler. But alas, I guess that being the German perspective isn't so surprising.

Interesting that the popular opinion on WWI is that it's a direct cause of WWII.
From the French perspective there was no avoiding WWI after 1870 and the loss of Alsace-Lorraine. That's just unthinkable and I think most of the press tried to shape the opinion that way.
the popular opinion is that after the death of Jean Jaurès* is the death of the last person who could have prevented the war.

*(HUUUUUGE politician, pretty much why French is a secular country, reshaped education but was full on colonialist (avert your eyes from the east to the colony as it is said)), his impact cannot be understated)

Eh, I'm not so sure about this, because I don't think there was a lot of friendly ribbing going on between France and Germany, neither before nor after WWI. Actually, I'd say that banter is a pretty recent development starting well after WWII. You guys being the "Erbfeind" ("hereditary enemy") didn't change all that much between the late 1860s and the end of WWII, dunno about the French perspective on this. The Treaty of Versailles obviously didn't help, but Frenchmen could rightfully claim crowning the German emperor in Versailles wasn't a nice thing to do either. And so on.

Or did you mean friendly ribbing going on now references WWI? Maybe so from the French side, but from the German side I think it's mostly about WWII, and yes, that's not really "politically correct" even/especially in Germany (I don't like that term, but it's pretty spot-on here). You can't really ask "Why do French tanks have a rear-view mirror?

Spoiler

To see the front line.

" about WWI. And yes, of course these are mostly stupid "surrender" jokes, but I seriously doubt any German would actually think the French only lost wars. Most Germans like France very much (myself included, but I seriously have to learn French properly) so I hope that when if the EU fails, we can at least have some kind of Charlemagne II

I'm mostly referencing banter, yes.
There's "jokes" about german from WWII but it revolves around nazi, gestapo and the likes. It does go beyond "just" WWII when banter is made at the expanse of the German.
Also sorry but as far as best enemies, it's always going to be the rosbif (english) they're the only one we allow any kind of dirty talk and that's because we're so sorry for their cooking "prowess" ;p.

Of course Germany is the biggest ally to France right now, the biggest trade partner to France is Germany after all.
As for the population, aside from the usual banter there is no way in hell we're ever going to war against such good friends.
And fuck the extreme right, made by and for the shitheads complicit with the traitorous Vichy government, they're the only guys who don't have utter contempt for nazis, most would have been shaved after WWII.

 

[Irminsul]

Interesting that the popular opinion on WWI is that it's a direct cause of WWII.

Well, in some sense I can see where that notion is coming from, because in the aftermath of WWI, no one really tried to ease the still present tensions between European nations. But of course, that alone doesn't cause another World War.

From the French perspective there was no avoiding WWI after 1870 and the loss of Alsace-Lorraine. That's just unthinkable and I think most of the press tried to shape the opinion that way.

Now that is interesting to me, because there sometimes is the notion even within Germany that "we" caused two World Wars. I mean there really is no discussion about the second one, but the first one at least most participants really wanted.

Also, this talk about Elsass-Lothringen Alsace-Lorraine reminds me I still have to visit Straßburg Strasbourg. Seems like a nice city. Verdun is also on that list, even though for completely different reasons, obviously. I saw something on a new/renovated museum opening there, so that should be a good opportunity.

I'm mostly referencing banter, yes.
There's "jokes" about german from WWII but it revolves around nazi, gestapo and the likes. It does go beyond "just" WWII when banter is made at the expanse of the German.
Also sorry but as far as best enemies, it's always going to be the rosbif (english) they're the only one we allow any kind of dirty talk and that's because we're so sorry for their cooking "prowess" ;p.

Of course Germany is the biggest ally to France right now, the biggest trade partner to France is Germany after all.
As for the population, aside from the usual banter there is no way in hell we're ever going to war against such good friends.

?

 

[CheDominik]

Well, in some sense I can see where that notion is coming from, because in the aftermath of WWI, no one really tried to ease the still present tensions between European nations. But of course, that alone doesn't cause another World War.

The League of Nations and Germany being invited in 1926 was a huge step towards easing tensions and a revision of rhe Treaty of Versaille. But the economy crash in 1929 and the following austerity politics killed the democratic parties in Germany. It's more controversial now among historians how much the NSDAP really was a result of the economy crashing but I still think that without the crash the democratic parties would have pulled through and normalized relations within Europe.
Electing the Prussian war hero and monarchist Hindenburg as president surely didn't help matters at all, as he was in way over his head when the crisis hit.

 

[Mael]

Well, in some sense I can see where that notion is coming from, because in the aftermath of WWI, no one really tried to ease the still present tensions between European nations. But of course, that alone doesn't cause another World War.

After WWII, the current friendship is really because a few people really wanted to avoid another one and be sure that it stayed that way.
say what you want about secret meetings and capitalism but that's how we finally managed to get out of this constant struggle between France and Germany.

Now that is interesting to me, because there sometimes is the notion even within Germany that "we" caused two World Wars. I mean there really is no discussion about the second one, but the first one at least most participants really wanted.

The way I understand it for the big Nations at the time only maybe the British didn't have a vested interest in going to War (and that is if you discount the Imperial colony situation). Everyone had something to gain from the War, that's why the death of the Archduke lead to it. We're even forgetting the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire that fell of a the map.
Everyone wanted in!

We can also thank Napolean Le petit (as Victor Hugo called him) for the sentiment in France.
He was outmaneuvered and forced into a war he couldn't win for no reason.
this created the 2nd Reich and lost us Alsace-Lorraine. There's plenty of popular song about how we had to win back Alsace-Lorraine from that time.

Also, this talk about Elsass-Lothringen Alsace-Lorraine reminds me I still have to visit Straßburg Strasbourg. Seems like a nice city. Verdun is also on that list, even though for completely different reasons, obviously. I saw something on a new/renovated museum opening there, so that should be a good opportunity.

If you go to Strasbourg, Xmas is the best time I'd think.
As far as big cities goes in France it's probably the one that managed to keep its identity the most (there's Marseille but that one is something else alright).
The north-east is not my fav part of France but I hope you'll have fun there!

*Hilarious picture*

?

Exactly!
We're not enemies with Germany! We're the best friend there is!

 

[Irminsul]

The League of Nations and Germany being invited in 1926 was a huge step towards easing tensions and a revision of rhe Treaty of Versaille. But the economy crash in 1929 and the following austerity politics killed the democratic parties in Germany. It's more controversial now among historians how much the NSDAP really was a result of the economy crashing but I still think that without the crash the democratic parties would have pulled through and normalized relations within Europe.
Electing the Prussian war hero and monarchist Hindenburg as president surely didn't help matters at all, as he was in way over his head when the crisis hit.

With "aftermath" I was more referring to the rather immediate aftermath of WWI. Because I agree with you, the Great Depression didn't really help the situation. Especially because it followed a time of relative stability that was, at least in Germany, to a big part funded by American loans.

Regarding Hindenburg, well, you could argue that even with the Great Depression, things could have gone another way as the NSDAP lost seats in the last free elections and all that was needed was a bit more time. On the other hand, Hindenburg also could've made Hitler chancellor a lot earlier.

As I said, I don't really agree with the notion that WWI was a direct cause of WWII, but what was done afterwards certainly didn't help.

 

[Frankfurter]

Verdun really should have been the kind of "experience" that makes people realize that war must be avoided at nearly all costs. Literally fighting for a couple of hundred meters, with no side ever gaining any significant ground, and ~300.000 dead.
Unbelievable that we had WW2 just 20 years after WWI

 

[Union Carbine]

Great OP. We are still living in the aftershocks of "The Great War".

 

[lawnchair]

"Humanity is mad. It must be mad to do what it is doing. What a massacre! What scenes of horror and carnage! I cannot find words to translate my impressions. Hell cannot be so terrible. Men are mad!"

Still makes sense today.

 

[4Tran]

The way I understand it for the big Nations at the time only maybe the British didn't have a vested interest in going to War (and that is if you discount the Imperial colony situation). Everyone had something to gain from the War, that's why the death of the Archduke lead to it. We're even forgetting the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire that fell of a the map.
Everyone wanted in!

Britain operated under two main foreign policy goals: that no country was allowed to dominate Continental Europe and that the Royal Navy was stronger than the next two European Powers combined. Wilhelm II's naval armament policy threatened both of those goals and so Britain was looking for an excuse to check Germany's power.

The only major power whose strategic interest was to delay the onset of war was Russia. They were still technologically backwards, but they were modernizing at a rapid rate. Delaying the war for a decade would have seen them in a vastly superior position than they were in in 1914.

Verdun really should have been the kind of "experience" that makes people realize that war must be avoided at nearly all costs. Literally fighting for a couple of hundred meters, with no side ever gaining any significant ground, and ~300.000 dead.
Unbelievable that we had WW2 just 20 years after WWI

The thing is, World War I was thought of as the "War to end all Wars" for much of the inter-War era. That line of thought was one of the reasons why Britain and France advocated appeasement at Munich in 1938. It's also why the Versailles Treaty forced Germany to a tiny Army, why the League of Nations was created, and why arms limitation treaties like the Washington Naval Treaty were written. The main problem was that the nations at the time had no idea how to achieve a lasting peace.

On the other note, I think that a case can be made that Verdun was a pivotal moment in World War I, and that it made it impossible for the Central Powers to win the war.

 

[close to the edge]

In school we went on the excursion on the path of Isonzo/Soča front. Another large front with many casualties. They even used avalanches as weapon during winter months. You can still visit trenches and mountain strongholds, riddled with craters.

This reminds me of when I used to go to Tyrol on vacations as a kid and my dad told me about how the Italian forces basically blew up the peak of a mountain because there were some Austrian forces up there (this was the mountain, if I'm not mistaken).

 

[KDR_11k]

I guess I'm glad that the iron harvest isn't a problem in Germany.

Yeah it's insane. I still don't understand the mustard gas thing.
Is that the same thing as is still being used today? I've heard that when we talk about chemical weapons in the middle-east a lot of that is mustard gas. Is that the same thing?

Yes, it's fairly low tech by modern standards but I guess that makes it easy to manufacture. The slightly more modern sarin (and tabun) gas was invented by the Nazis but not used in WW2 because all sides assumed that as long as they don't use chem weapons their enemies won't either. Those were used in the ME too. Can't even be ancient stockpiles because that stuff decays after a few years.

 

[Savitar]

Canada and the first World War.

Great info, pictures and more there on the role Canadians played.

 

[Exr]

Excellent OP. Verdun was representative of many aspects of WW1 as a whole, such incredible destruction. Ill chime in reccomending Dan Carlins WW1 series for Hardcore History.

 

[wowbaggerBR]

This isn't true. People have described and had names for PTSD for centuries before WWI and certainly in modern military engagements prior to it (in the US Civil War it was "soldier's heart", previous to WWI it was sometimes just called "battle fatigue", etc.) The difference is that it wasn't usually treated or often recognized as a long-term mental issue until really the 1970s and 80s.



Like how Britain usually forgets that their best pilots during the Battle of Britain were Poles, who Churchill and the allies shafted royally after the war.

The greatest allied ace of the WWII was born in Brazil.