Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Battle of Verdun
watched a documentary last night on the first world war battle of Verdun. It really puts a question mark against the intelligence of the troops who blindly allowed themselves to be used as cannon fodder just to bolster the egos of the murderously incompetent generals. Why they did n`t just throw down their arms and refuse to be slaughtered is beyond comprehension.
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by claymore. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
They believed that they were fighting for their country - and their patriotism and sense of duty made them do what they are told.
In the armed forces you are trained not to question orders and you have to trust your officers to do the right thing.
The officers let their men down in a terrible way - but what you see as stupidity is in fact bravery and loyalty.
I have served in the armed forces, I consider myself to be intellegent, but accepted orders without question because in a battle situation - having a discussion on what orders to obey or ignore is not an option.
Also you are looking at this with hindsight, and seeing from a more general point of view - a soldiers eye view during the war would have been different.
I hope that you are just asking this question just to be contraversial, otherwise your own intelllegence could be called to question.
In the armed forces you are trained not to question orders and you have to trust your officers to do the right thing.
The officers let their men down in a terrible way - but what you see as stupidity is in fact bravery and loyalty.
I have served in the armed forces, I consider myself to be intellegent, but accepted orders without question because in a battle situation - having a discussion on what orders to obey or ignore is not an option.
Also you are looking at this with hindsight, and seeing from a more general point of view - a soldiers eye view during the war would have been different.
I hope that you are just asking this question just to be contraversial, otherwise your own intelllegence could be called to question.
At the start of each major battle such as Verdun, The Somme etc the troops were told that this was the one that would secure victory and win the war.
At the start of the 20th century society was much more different than today's. The common soldiers from both sides were predominantly from the working classes and used to being told what to do by their social 'superiors' so they were in the Army for the 'duration' come what may, there were few cases of outright mutiny apart from in 1917 which the Allies managed to keep quiet from the Germans, and even this was a demonstration on the conduct of the war rather than the war itself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Army_Mutin ies_(1917)
It is hard to imagine that such slaughter on an industrial scale would happen in today's society
At the start of the 20th century society was much more different than today's. The common soldiers from both sides were predominantly from the working classes and used to being told what to do by their social 'superiors' so they were in the Army for the 'duration' come what may, there were few cases of outright mutiny apart from in 1917 which the Allies managed to keep quiet from the Germans, and even this was a demonstration on the conduct of the war rather than the war itself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Army_Mutin ies_(1917)
It is hard to imagine that such slaughter on an industrial scale would happen in today's society
Remember that many people who refused to go "over the top" were shot by their own army as a coward.
There were some who refused but they paid with their life.
Only now are some being pardoned.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/migrationtemp/ 1526395/Executed-First-World-War-soldier-pardo ned.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1543106 /Pardoned-shot-at-dawn-soldiers-are-honoured.h tml
There were some who refused but they paid with their life.
Only now are some being pardoned.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/migrationtemp/ 1526395/Executed-First-World-War-soldier-pardo ned.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1543106 /Pardoned-shot-at-dawn-soldiers-are-honoured.h tml
The other thing to remember is that it is only with the passing of time that we can say 50,000 were killed in that battle, or 60,000 in that battle.
At the time these numbers would not be known and certainly the government and army would not have let it be known that so many were being killed (although soldiers would have known of mass slaughter in their own area of battle)
The average man in the trenches would have no idea of the "big picture" because what was published in the papers was heavily censored by the government, and of course there was no radio, TV or internet to spread the word.
Without being too rude, the working man was rather ignorant at that time and was probably more concerned about where his next meal was coming from or how to earn a living wage.
Many probably knew little of what went on outside their own street, let alone their own city or country.
At the time these numbers would not be known and certainly the government and army would not have let it be known that so many were being killed (although soldiers would have known of mass slaughter in their own area of battle)
The average man in the trenches would have no idea of the "big picture" because what was published in the papers was heavily censored by the government, and of course there was no radio, TV or internet to spread the word.
Without being too rude, the working man was rather ignorant at that time and was probably more concerned about where his next meal was coming from or how to earn a living wage.
Many probably knew little of what went on outside their own street, let alone their own city or country.
If memory serves the French refused to go on the offensive at Verdun (or rather would'nt counter attack) the result of this was The Battle Of The Somme, German losses in this battle forced them to break off the offensive at Verdun, that and their own casualtys at Verdun made the prosecution of battle ion these theaters untenable.
The troops really did'nt have much choice other than to fight, and in reality The Great war was almost purely an attritional conflict our abilty to kill people in combat exceeded our ability to manouvre troops in combat.
The Great War was arguably 3 wars in 1 there was the Schlieffen plan attack, then the set piece battle counter attack, followed by a more traditional strategic war of territorial advantages with land gained.
The troops really did'nt have much choice other than to fight, and in reality The Great war was almost purely an attritional conflict our abilty to kill people in combat exceeded our ability to manouvre troops in combat.
The Great War was arguably 3 wars in 1 there was the Schlieffen plan attack, then the set piece battle counter attack, followed by a more traditional strategic war of territorial advantages with land gained.
You must also remember that untill the Viet-Nam war there was no or very little actual live reporting from the battle front , most info reaching the general public was thru, the newspapers, overwhich the governments had considerable control,So stories about "The Beastly Hun" such as Belgion nuns being raped, babies being inpaled on bayonets and P.O.Ws being crucified on the barbed wire in no-mans land abounded, You only have to watch and listen to the many recorded intervews with veterans to know that initially, at least, many men believed that "The Hun"was truly evil and that they were doing Gods work. Such was the power of "good" propaganda that 10,000's of brave men went to their deaths in the belief they were fighting the "Good Fight"
To be fair Paddy there is some evidence to suggest that the crucified soldier took place and that he was a Canadian, the treatment of the Belgians was very poor (I think the Germans called it "frightening" something like that) it may have been exaggerated but bad things DID happen there.
Politicians often (always?) use God to achieve a contentious political end, it's a cop out to blame religion in a non-religious war
Politicians often (always?) use God to achieve a contentious political end, it's a cop out to blame religion in a non-religious war
There are some very well thought oput replies above, but can i just add, that when my grandfather and his mates went to volunteer in halifax when he was only 16, he did it because he couldn;t wait to get stuck in, to make a difference and show he was a man and could stand shoulder to shoulder with his pals. (he was 5ft 6 ) but he stood tall then, and earned his two medals, but regretted it all for the rest of his 60 years. It was a different age, there was work and family and that was all, it was exciting and unknown.
Everton as you say there was probably more then a grain of truth in all the reports but as you know it's how you tell the story, I've no doubt that the Germans were pumping out the same sort of stuff. As regards to the "Crucified Soldier"
there's a documentary doing the rounds on Sky about him, but i missed it so dont know what conclusions they reached
there's a documentary doing the rounds on Sky about him, but i missed it so dont know what conclusions they reached
I have not set out to question the bravery and desire of the men who volunteered to fight for King and country,what I question is why they continued to accept the appalling conditions, the useless carnage, all for a few meters of mud. nearly 1million dead missing and wounded fighting for nothing but national prestige is insane in any mans language.
If you look at the rate of attrition after D-Day it was'nt that much different from The Great War (especially on the Eastern Front) all that changed was the mobility.
WW1 was what it was I'm not sure it really could have been won any other way.
A question you might like is, imagine if we'd gone in with Germany in 1914? How different the World would look now....
WW1 was what it was I'm not sure it really could have been won any other way.
A question you might like is, imagine if we'd gone in with Germany in 1914? How different the World would look now....
This question has raised a number of points
1 Why not give in at Verdun? Verdun is in France. The French had been invaded by the Germans for the second time in living memory. Verdun had been the last fort to hold out in the Franco-Prussian War. Imagine if the invasion had been of England. Would you be surprised if the Army command and popular sentiment had insisted that York or Canterbury should not be surrendered without a fight?
Verdun was much less significant militarily than as a symbol. It was chosen by the Germans specifically as a place that the French would be bound to defend with the intention of "bleeding France white". The eventual casualty bill was around 550,000 French to 440,000 Germans, about half of them in each case killed.
2. The generals on both sides were anything but incompetent, but Verdun was exposed on three sides and until the introduction of tanks late in WWI a static position like Verdun was doomed to be a killing field for both attackers and defenders.
3. Britain, and therefore Canada, Australia, New Zealand , India and all the other countries of the (then) Empire were only involved in WWI because Germany chose to attack France via Belgium. Regardless of the truth or severity of atrocities perpetrated by the German forces in Belgium (and there was a commission to investigate these claims which concluded there was a case to answer), Britain had a treaty to go to Belgium's assistance in the event of an invasion. This was one of the interlocking treaties which diplomats across Europe had put in place to make war unthinkable. Unfortunately once war had started these same treaties ensured, like a set of falling dominoes, that the resulting conflict involved practically everybody south of Scandinavia with the exception of the Swiss. There was never any possibility that Britain would have entered the war on the German side.
1 Why not give in at Verdun? Verdun is in France. The French had been invaded by the Germans for the second time in living memory. Verdun had been the last fort to hold out in the Franco-Prussian War. Imagine if the invasion had been of England. Would you be surprised if the Army command and popular sentiment had insisted that York or Canterbury should not be surrendered without a fight?
Verdun was much less significant militarily than as a symbol. It was chosen by the Germans specifically as a place that the French would be bound to defend with the intention of "bleeding France white". The eventual casualty bill was around 550,000 French to 440,000 Germans, about half of them in each case killed.
2. The generals on both sides were anything but incompetent, but Verdun was exposed on three sides and until the introduction of tanks late in WWI a static position like Verdun was doomed to be a killing field for both attackers and defenders.
3. Britain, and therefore Canada, Australia, New Zealand , India and all the other countries of the (then) Empire were only involved in WWI because Germany chose to attack France via Belgium. Regardless of the truth or severity of atrocities perpetrated by the German forces in Belgium (and there was a commission to investigate these claims which concluded there was a case to answer), Britain had a treaty to go to Belgium's assistance in the event of an invasion. This was one of the interlocking treaties which diplomats across Europe had put in place to make war unthinkable. Unfortunately once war had started these same treaties ensured, like a set of falling dominoes, that the resulting conflict involved practically everybody south of Scandinavia with the exception of the Swiss. There was never any possibility that Britain would have entered the war on the German side.
1 to 14 of 14
