Unimaginable Hell, WWI

Gallipoli was no picnic either, especially for those captured by the Turks.

The Battle of Verdun was another charnel house some 300,000 causalities if I remember correctly. Mind you before breech loading rifles and heavy artillery the Battle of Boridino caused some 70,000 causalities in a day. Just about every French villages has memorial to the fallen of the great war.

Someone said, when we forget history we are doomed to repeat it.

Click to expand...

I've always thought that that statement was a steaming pile of malarkey. We remember many thing that we keep doing over and over again. Remembering stuff doesn't prevent them from happening again. And, forgetting them doesn't ensure they will happen again. I think this was said as a "reasoning" on the importance of history. But, IMO, I believe that it is far more important to remember history for sake of our story. We all belong within a story, a reality, a bigger picture, and this is very important. When we become disconnected from our story or our place within it, we lose purpose, and problems arise.
That said, comparatively I know way less about WW1 than WW2. I was watching a movie that was set 1910 and they were discussing the sinking of US trade ships in the Philippines. I had to actually google it to see what on Earth they were talking about. I know more about WW2 because my Grandfather and my uncles all talked about it, but I have never known anyone who was in WW1. When I asked my grandfather, when I was little, about who in our family ever served in WW1, he just told me that the US had very little to do with WW1 and that very few Americans were involved. I'm sure he meant "comparatively."
But, movies about WW1 are few and far between, books, songs, stories, it is a war that lacks its story within our own story, IMO.

We can thank Mr. Wilson and his "League of Nations" for WWII as none of the members had the will to keep Germany in hand. France, Germany and Great Britain lost a considerable portion of a generation of boys in the war. The machine gun was the king of no-man's land until the tank came along and in its slow clumsy way helped solve the mystery of how to surmount heavily protected entrenched positions. Probably the only positive out of WWI was the next war was led by veterans of it and they were not going to make the same mistakes.
The Eastern Front in WWII mimicked the trench fighting of WWI as Russia capitulated to the Germans in the earlier war and learned little from the experience. The Western Front was much more mobile as both the Germans and Allies had learned from the carnage of WWI. Stalin had the bodies to fight such a war. The Allies did not and valued mobility. The lessons of WWI were dearly purchased as was the so-called peace.

What George Santayana said was "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".
Two books well worth reading concerning the politics in Europe before, and after, the war are, The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman and Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World by Margaret MacMillan.

Cosmic your relatives are very interesting regarding the great war. America did have a large involvement, financially and perhaps this overshadow s the troops committed. Conversely some 200,000 plus Irish men fought for the crown forces,they are rarley mentioned.

Warren, to add to your point regarding the eastern front the conditions played a major role in how the war was fought. The Russians do favor General Winter.

A static war of attrition was the way for Stalin early on and winter was indeed an ally. Also, the more land he grudgingly ceded the longer and more vulnerable the German supply lines. Early in the war it was very much like Napoleon's incursion, but with more lethal weapons.
I should point out that once he got the material from the allies and Russia's production up to speed he became a proponent of mobile warfare. But, he always knew that he had more kids available than the Germans and therefore could bleed the Germans as he developed the ability to wage a modern war. A very pragmatic man.

Indeed Warren, Kursk was anything but static!

I believe most vets here will tell you there is no such thing as a good war. There are just wars but no good ones.
Take a look at some of the carnage of the civil war. There were battles in forests - afterwards, nothing left but splintered stubs and trunks, felled mostly by small arms fire. Imagine what happened to the men in those fields.
And what of med-evil times when your opponent attempted to cut your limbs off with broadswords or crush your skull with a mace. If the wounds did't kill them outright, how many died slow lingering deaths from infected traumatic injuries. Keep in mind that there were no anesthetics or antibiotics.
Not to mention disease endemic to any war. The Great Flue Pandemic of 1918 was bought to the U.S. by veterans. They were housed in cramped barracks, providing an excellent incubator.
Our pre-dispostion to violence seems to be genetic. Look at how we entertain ourselves. Most movies and televsion involve bad guys killing bad guys, good guys who break rules and kill bad guys, cowboys killing indians, knights jousting and fighting with swords, humans fighting alians. Even slapstick comedy like the three stooges involves poking eyes, hitting people with two by fours, etc.
The dinosaurs ruled the earth for about 66 million years. Humans have been here just 200,000 years. If we don't somehow learn to change our ways and stop psychopaths from coming to power, I'm afraid homo-sapiens may just be a minor detour in the history of evolution. And there will be no one around to remember us.

If there are any podcast nerds on here, I cannot recommend Hardcore History highly enough.
It's a history podcast by a very interesting guy named Dan Carlin. He is about to wrap up a WWI series titled Blueprint For Armageddon. It's outstanding and now I have a MUCH better understanding of exactly how brutal WWI was. It's staggering.
Not to mention that listening to a history podcast goes supremely well with sipping on an evening pipe...

@brass- the dinosaurs could be pretty violent, too!

I've often wondered, if a comprehensive history of Kursk had been available to study, would Patton have changed his mind with regard to the low esteem in which he held the Russian ability to wage war. I suspect he would have as he was not stinting in his respect for certain enemies. He probably would have retained the opinion that could whip them with his third army alone, but he would have had more respect for them.
I was lucky to know, and to self-concerned to spend the time with a WWI vet who worked for my father when I was a kid. He marched in his "dough boy" uniform every 4th with a handful of other vets. I knew he suffered from being gassed and saw that he had a couple of medals on his chest. Too young to show an interest and he was too reticent to tell stories. My loss!

'At the going down of the sun, we shall remember them'. I just wish wish my country's people & politicians would stop & think more often what many bravely fought & died for. As we seem to be just giving this country away!

Aldecakeeer, so says Stephen Spielberg. But seriously, some species may have fought one on one over mates, food or territory. But I do think humans are unique in that they gang up, travel thousands of miles, to kill and maim people by the millions that they haven't met.
I'm not a pacifist. As long as psychopaths rise to power - and they are the kind who have the ruthless ambition to get to the top - then we will have to protect ourselves and our friends.
It isn't hopeless. There are indications that we may actually live in some of the safest and most peaceful times in history.

I've always thought that that statement was a steaming pile of malarkey
Not to refute Michael on his concept about the quote, but Warren's statement about the Russian winter is exactly a case in point.
Stalin remembered Napoleon's Russian Invasion and depended on a desperate resistance and Russia's vast distances with it's harsh elements over which supplies must be moved by invading armies.

Hitler did not, or having done so rolled the dice against the issues that resulted in the French retreat. The Russian's harassed German supply lines and through themselves at German troops in suicidal passion (whether willingly or not is debatable). Hitler made poor decision after poor decision ignoring the advice of his generals and withholding needed requests by his commanders in the field at crucial junctures. Result, history was repeated, in that once again a conquering army was defeated by basically the same conditions. Not that the two commanders, Napoleon and Hitler, made their decisions for the same reasons, but that the decisions of both commanders emotionally under estimated the conditions at play and the ability of human beings to endure them.

This cause and effect has happened many time in world history in relationship to terrain and battle strategy, Battle for Kasserine Pass comes to mind but there are many many such examples.
Another example of this type of expression is the definition of crazy: doing the same things, in the same manner and expecting different results. Cause and effect! :D Basic science is proven this way..... or at least was at one time. 8O

Any war is pure hell for those asked to fight it. War is inhumanity raise to an art form. Each conflict brings with it improved ways to inflict pain, suffering and death on others. The one constant is that we prefect our abilities to do so. Until those that put personal ambition ahead of the good of humanity are somehow contained, we seem destined to repeat history. When will violence not be an acceptable means of achieving one's objectives? Probably never. Just look at the Middle East, likely as not, tomorrow's world war in the making. My father, WW2, me, Vietnam, my oldest son and daughter Iraq and Afghanistan, three generations and still no better way. Remembering it doesn't seem to change much, it just honors those that had to do it.

The fear of defeat keeps many bad guys at bay. That's why a sizable, well trained and equipped military helps to insure peace. The USSR and the US fought continuously at little out of the way parts of the world over the years, Korea, Nam, Afghanistan, et alii. But each was very careful not to push the issue as neither side was assured of total, quick victory.
Hitler and Napoleon were both guilty of underestimating the Russian will to fight. Not the Russian government, the Russian people. "Mother Russia" is a real and deep set image in the hearts of the Russian people. When Russians fight, they all fight, men, women and children and they do it tenaciously when invaded. I've lived there. Russia may house a varied population but, their love of country is surpassed by no other country I know of and love has little to do with the government in place. Invading the country means fighting the entire population, not just the military. Hitler and Nappy learned that the hard way.

When I married my wife I met her Great Uncle Dick, when one day I was bringing his brother some Borkam Riff from Baton Rouge. Uncle Dick was gassed in France, in his middle 70 s when I met him. Hospitalized in England for almost 2 years, Family thought he was dead. One Fall they were cutting a late rice crop and down the country lane they saw a man in uniform coming home, imagine the happiness there. My wife was his favorite, every Sunday he would come to their house and eat Sunday dinner. He never married. We as soldiers never talked about war but we would enjoy each other's company immensely. He was a credit to his race.

Warren, I take your point regarding Hitler. I would suggest that Nap had a history of beating the Russians,in the days before what may be considered "national armies" and therefore the national grit of the Motherland may not have been the same factor some 130 years later. The Grand Armee was more motivated, however Kunstov was minded to withdraw and allow the French Moscow itself,allowing an inevitable conclusion to occur.

With regard to Russian motivation against the Wermacht I am always mindful of the penal battalions.