10 debunked myths of World War I

[Henry IX]

Now, in the spirit of ´debunking myths´ one might say this were not true, because they also protected the troops against (machine) gun fire. So: #11: ´Trenches were made to dug arti-fire - Actually, the first trenches were dug to hide from small calibre fire, like rifles and machine guns. Many more small calibre bullets missed they intented targets, because of trenches, than arti-shells´

Trenches were dug to protect men from the massive firepower of the WW1 battlefield. They significantly improved your chances of survival against all types of armaments available in 1914.

Somebody I read once (AJP Taylor?) made the point that atrillery was they only thing that could destroy trenches and one of the reasons for the initial digging of trenches was the volume of small arms fire was too large to allow operations in view of the enemy. The shortage of artillery and amunition on all sides after the first months of the war prevented them from blasting through the shallow, single line of trenches that had formed to that date and allow some form of mobile operations to occur. By the time armament manufacture had caught up to the needs of the beligerents (around 1916 for most nations) the trench lines had become deep and complex enough that simple weight of shells was no longer sufficient.

So the trench lines appeared partly due to modern artillery and partly due to a lack of it.

 

[nwinther]

I saw a tv programme about the early months of WW1, and it said that initially the german artillery was superiour because they used indirect fire, whereas the british used direct fire with the cons being considerably larger than the pros.
Anyone know if this is accurate?

 

[StephenT]

I saw a tv programme about the early months of WW1, and it said that initially the german artillery was superiour because they used indirect fire, whereas the british used direct fire with the cons being considerably larger than the pros.
Anyone know if this is accurate?

I'm not sure why that TV programme would single out "the British", considering they had by far the smallest army in the field during the early months of the war. What about the French army, or the Russian army, or the Austrian army?

What is true, though, is that indirect fire was very much a new and untried science in 1914. It was something people had written books about, but in all previous wars artillery had been used almost exclusively in the direct fire role. That was due to technological advances: between the American Civil War and the First World War the effective range of artillery had increased ten times over.

The Germans did, indeed, have an initial advantage over the other armies in 1914 because every German infantry division had a detachment of 18 10.5cm field howitzers integral to its organisation.

These guns were designed specifically for indirect fire, and the Germans made great use of them. The French, by contrast, equipped their divisions solely with the 75mm field gun, which was an excellent weapon in the direct fire role but lacked indirect fire effectiveness.

The result was that in the Battle of the Frontiers in August 1914, French infantry units advancing through the Ardennes forests ran headfirst into German indirect artillery fire - while the woods blocked the view of their own direct-fire artillery - and were slaughtered.

The British did, in fact, equip their own infantry divisions with 4.5" (11.3 cm) howitzers, giving them equal or better indirect fire capability as the Germans - but given that there were fewer than half a dozen British divisions fighting in early 1914, their influence on the course of the battles was minimal.

 

[jamhaw]

I'm not sure why that TV programme would single out "the British", considering they had by far the smallest army in the field during the early months of the war. What about the French army, or the Russian army, or the Austrian army?
.

Probably a British one?

 

[nwinther]

I'm not sure why that TV programme would single out "the British", considering they had by far the smallest army in the field during the early months of the war. What about the French army, or the Russian army, or the Austrian army?

As I'm not the editor of said programme, I have no way to answer your question. As jamhaw points out it might have been british - it was certinly in the english language.

One of the points IIRC was that the direct-fire artillery was visible to the enemy, whereas the indirect artillery, despite being less precise, was operating from a secure position and could negate the disadvantageous lack of precision with a freedom of operation where they didn't have to worry about return fire.

 

[vertinox]

Hrm... I like how it compares the Versailles treaty to WW2 one. Up until 1945 the Versailles treaty was the harshest treaty Germany had received. Had they given Germany a more amiable peace treaty it would have been less likely that Hitler could have used that as a talking point to come into power. The Wiemar republic's hyper inflation happened because they printed money to pay the Allied powers back. Then in turn the Allies occupied western Germany to confiscate coal. This did not go over well with the Germans.

The Allies should have taken back Alsace-Lorraine to France and let the Germans keep everything to the east since it owned it way more than 100 years. Then they should have stipulated the Kaiser be reinstated as a ceremonial role similar to the UK and figured out a better balance of power for their democracy with checks and balances to prevent a fascist or communist dictatorship from coming into power.

Of course this is all hindsight 20/20, but to say that the Versailles treaty was not harsh doesn't make sense because it was the harshest treaty up until WW2 and was a key point of how Hitler got into power by citing the German population's anger over the treaty.

 

[PEP]

but to say that the Versailles treaty was not harsh doesn't make sense because it was the harshest treaty up until WW2

No. Not really. It was harsh but not that harsh.

and was a key point of how Hitler got into power by citing the German population's anger over the treaty.

So? The Great Depression certainly did more for Hitler than Versailles. The problem was France and the UK didn't a) renegotiate the treaty when the US refused to ratify it and b) use the tools at their disposal to actually enforce it, basically letting the Germans get away with anything while still allowing them to use Versailles as a scapegoat for their very own problems. The one thing the Germans couldn't get over was that they lost the war, any treaty would have been deemed "too harsh".

 

[Arilou]

Hrm... I like how it compares the Versailles treaty to WW2 one. Up until 1945 the Versailles treaty was the harshest treaty Germany had received.

It was the ONLY peace treaty Germany had recieved. (unless you count the end of the Franco-Prussian war as being concluded by "Germany" I guess)

 

[nwinther]

Then they should have stipulated the Kaiser be reinstated as a ceremonial role similar to the UK and figured out a better balance of power for their democracy with checks and balances to prevent a fascist or communist dictatorship from coming into power.

I think you have a point with the Kaiser. Keeping a monarch (in a less-powerful role) would continue the monarchical tradition and make an outright Führer much harder to instate. The Presidency was 15 years old - no one really respected the institution and removing it was easily coped with.
While that may not have been the be-all-end-all solution to all of Germany's woes, it would definitely present itself as a stopgap for the more extreme forces.

 

[StephenT]

I think you have a point with the Kaiser. Keeping a monarch (in a less-powerful role) would continue the monarchical tradition and make an outright Führer much harder to instate.

Didn't stop Mussolini...

 

[Dewirix]

Didn't stop Mussolini...

Or Franco, for that matter.

 

[SorelusImperion]

Didn't stop Mussolini...

It didn't prevent him but it helped putting an end to him.

Or Franco, for that matter.

Spain was a Republic and Franco siezed power through civil war. Once the monarchy was restored the first steps the king took was restoring Democracy.

 

[jamhaw]

I think you have a point with the Kaiser. Keeping a monarch (in a less-powerful role) would continue the monarchical tradition and make an outright Führer much harder to instate. The Presidency was 15 years old - no one really respected the institution and removing it was easily coped with.
While that may not have been the be-all-end-all solution to all of Germany's woes, it would definitely present itself as a stopgap for the more extreme forces.

It did not help that both presidents wanted a monarchy.