I read accounts of the the Great War and what always strikes me most is how a lot of the men who willingly went to fight in the first seem so nonchalant and almost excited to go fight.
Wasn't there some salty officers or NCOs that knew what was coming or was war as the world knew about change forever?
What do you guys think?
WWI General thread
WW1 was a totally new type of warfare and the first major european war for a long time so many of the conscripts and volunteers had no idea what they were in for, same goes for the officers because they were volunteers/conscripts as well.
>>478411
Would you say thay America's entry prepared them more for this new type of warfare? Or I should say SHOULD'VE considering they took enormous losses in the few months they were in country for. It was as if everything was learned through trial and error and the blood of a whole generation.
>>478411
This. WW1 was a transition from 19th century "gentlemanly" warfare to modern warfare. The war started with horses and ended with tanks. Battles which used to only last a day or two at most started to span months. Those soldiers had no idea what they were getting into.
>>478419
you hit the nail on the head really, the USA did take heavy losses this was because the US didnt have the experience the europeans had from the previous 3 years of fighting, they adapted quickly however. for most soldiers the only stories of war they had were mostly colonial conflicts and tales of travelling the world and valiant heroics, this idea was also perpetuated through propaganda. because as we know now, who the fuck would want to go to war
>>478352
Most were factory workers only a few months before. They were together with their friends from the same factory and they were going on an heroic adventure. They'd sweep the enemy away and be home before Christmas with lots of medals. Then Dorothy from the other side of the street would see then in their uniform and fall in love and they'd live happily ever after.
Noone had the faintest idea what they were in for.
>>478352
They seemed excited to go fight because, at the start, the mentality regarding warfare was still stuck in a pre-19th century idealism. War was seen as glorious, as the ultimate means of expressing one's heroic nature and noble spirit. This was founded on a type of warfare that persisted since medieval times when nobles of one kind or another would rally comparably small armies to fight, skirmish for a few months to a handful of years, then exchange some manner of territory, money, or offer a family member for marriage. It was essentially a game between nobles, and participation for the common man was one of the few opportunities available in a pre-industrial world for social advancement. You could see this idealism crushed within days of the fighting's start, but control over media meant that most nations could effectively cover up the horrors and use nationalistic rhetoric to drive more men into service. Hell, we'd see this sort of thing used into WWII, albeit needing the added narrative of a mighty "conflict of ideology."
Also most officers who were not expected to be part of the direct fighting were largely enthusiastic for war at the beginning. They too saw it through the lens of a bygone age of warfare as merely a means by which they could forward their careers and status. It was enough so that many would not be above withholding orders from their superiors if it meant that the likelihood that they would be given a chance to pursue "glory" was on the line.
>all this "war was noble 19th century napoopan4lyfe" bullshit
Jeez guys... read a book, seriously.
This is a war that came at a time where a lot of folks had experienced, over the past fifty years or so, realities very similar to those that WW1 would present. That is tons of men armed with rifles being moved by rail, ifghting in trenches and facing massed artillery and rifle fire backed up by industrial powers.
Indeed it was a much greater and bloodier conflict than those before. But you people make it sound like they thought they would get a funny bright uniform, meet for one decisive battle, one side breaks with relatively low casualties and they go home. They didn't. They were aware of what warfare looked past 1850.
>>478609
>They'd sweep the enemy away and be home before Christmas with lots of medals.
Virtually no one in any position of power, influence etc. on either side expected 'to be home before Christmas". They knew what warfare was like and fully expected a prolonged conflict.
>Noone had the faintest idea what they were in for.
Again, except people like the governments or general staff personnel who were expecting several years of conflict. "Home by Christmas" is basically a popular myth. Kinda like the Christmas truces painted as both sides throwing down arms and playing footy. Sure, there were isolated incidents... but elsewhere, tens of thousands continued in the war.
>>478425
>The war started with horses and ended with tanks.
The war also ended with horses. And wars continued to have horses. Wars like WW2.
>>479420
>The war also ended with horses. And wars continued to have horses. Wars like WW2.
And the mujahadeen in Afghanistan. A weapon is only as useful as its context allows. That doesn't mean the overall nature of war isn't changed. There's still a use for bayonets, even if they aren't commonly used.
>>479414
What is the Franco-Prussian War.
>>479414
Nothing of what you said contradicts the idea that war was largely seen as a noble affair leading up to WW1.
>>478419
US didn't have experience, their army was outdated, badly trained unexperienced.
Single veteran in team of conscripts will make them soldiers quickly, full team of conscripts will be conscripts until 3/4th of them die.
>>479490
So what exactly is gentlemanly about artillery pounding someone far away while you sit in a trench for days, awaiting the enemy artillery barrage? I.e. the Crimean War.
>>479426
>if they aren't commonly used.
Maybe not in terms of a straight-up bayonet charge, but yes, bayonets are still commonly used.
>>478352
Funny thing about those officers you're talking about is that, at least for the British, they were often some of the first to die.
Many of those officers fought in colonial wars against under-equipped natives, and were used to leading from the front, which is an attitude they brought to the Great War, resulting in particularly high casualty rates for those officers.
>>479509
Gentlemanly? They thought war was sociologically healthy and noble, where both men and nations tested their medal. World War 1 ended that. War began to be seen as hell and immensely destructive.
>>479414
>But you people make it sound like they thought they would get a funny bright uniform
Ah yeah, nothing like that.
Quantity has a quality all its own, you might say. Scale is as much a factor as the specific technology. And the idea that technology itself made no improvements between the Crimean War and 1914 is silly.
People exaggerate the starkness of the shift. Don't exaggerate in addressing that exaggeration.
>>479558
>dark blue
>bright
>he doesn't know the french adopted blue-grey uniforms before WW1 broke out but the jerries invaded before they could equip everyone
>>479564
>he doesn't know he's just acknowledged he was wrong
It should be enough for you to know better than the popular perception. You shouldn't feel the need to exaggerate the distance between the truth and the popular perception. You should address whatever self-perceived inadequacies lie at the heart of a persistent impulse to do so.
>>479418
home by Christmas was a myth but the European powers did expect to end the war quickly
Lyn Macdonald had the best WWI books that focus on the POVs of officers, grunts, and civilians.
Read her 1914 book. It sheds light on what the home front was like in Britain and the enthusiasm the troops had from August to December.
>>479414
They've all listened to Dan Carlin and now they think they know shit
>>479414
But the bloodier conflicts up to that date were considered "exceptions", hence why no lessons were drawn from Crimea.
And up until WWI, armies were professional based upon volunteers not conscripts. So a great many people actually didn't have any accurate idea of what war would be like since they were getting their info from either veterans (who had volunteered) or propaganda.
Between the newspaper articles, military propaganda, and volunteer Joe's stories war could sound almost fun.
>>480303
Who the hell is Dan Carlin? Doesn't he talk about sports or some shit?
>>480436
Never before were countries able to actually equip and support millions of soldiers.
>tfw people still believe the Anglo narrative
>>480506
>Who the hell is Dan Carlin? Doesn't he talk about sports or some shit?
He's this guy who commercially advertises a junk youtube channel on /his/
>>480914
Stop shitting up every board you autistic German cunt
>>479570
>>he doesn't know he's just acknowledged he was wrong
? where have i ever done such a thing
they have literally adopted the uniforms that summer
unless this is some high level bait
>>483560
not the original anon but...
>pickelhaube
Well there's a reason why many people consider it to be the beginning of the new era and not for example WWII. It was the end of the world. And I don't mean just the end of the post-Vienna Europe but the end of the old social structure even if not every aristocrat died in battle. It's really weird watching those early pictures or films of soldiers in 19th century-era uniforms. Or today when we visit mansion of some German duke knowing those were the last days of this old world.
>>478352
You'd be amazed how ignorant Joe Public can be of the realities of war when he has no internet and all mainstream news sources are hyped up with patriotic fervor.
