4 ms·

I think they are erroneously including the number of men captured in the Franco-Prussian number. They aren't sharing sources for this article so it is hard to k

I think they are erroneously including the number of men captured in the Franco-Prussian number. They aren't sharing sources for this article so it is hard to know but Wikipedia (which does source the number) lists 475,000 of that million number as prisoners of war that probably survived the war and were repatriated.

bluejekyll 9y ago
Well, even if you do divide it in half, that's still a rate of death of 500,000 a year. So using that as a way of estimating deaths of another conflict, it should have been enough to stop an actual war. That requires the people ruling the countries to actually care about the effects this would have on their own populations... Sadly, even using that as an estimate it would have been off by more than half of how many would actually die.
- WesleyLivesay 9y ago
  Absolutely! I don't think your conclusions are wrong, it is pretty crazy that they would make that large of an error in the article. I assume they mixed up "missing" and "captured". It is also worth remembering that everybody thought the war in 1914 would be short, there were very few people who thought it would drag out for years. All involved probably did some mental math based on actions like the the Franco-Prussian war and figured that the same level of casualties, or even twice as many, was worth it. If they would have known, which we do with hindsight, that it was going to take 4+ years of fighting it may have never happened.
  - bluejekyll 9y ago
    Agreed, but did they have any reason to believe it would be shorter than the Franco-Prussian War? I agree, they definitely believed it was going to be over quickly, but why would they have thought it was less than 9 months (easy to assume 500K killed based on previous experience). In addition to that, you had two countries that were literally preparing for this conflict for years, poking each other around the world up to that point. I think anyone who thought it was going to be short, would have been completely ignoring all evidence that would have stated otherwise.
    - vkou 9y ago
      > Agreed, but did they have any reason to believe it would be shorter than the Franco-Prussian War? Yes. Germany came within spitting distance of Paris thanks to the Shlieffen plan, and was only hobbled at the eleventh hour by overextended supply lines. Meanwhile, the Entente was counting on the Russian juggernaut, with its millions of men to overrun East Germany. The Russians saw great successes against Austrian forces, but met a complete disaster when they engaged the Germans. As it turned out, the Russian empire was a paper tiger - completely unprepared to fight a war.
      - grotsnot 9y ago
        Would the war have actually ended early if Germany had taken Paris? With the British and Russians still unmolested on their own turf, wouldn't the French have tried to retake the city instead of surrendering? Or at least their allies keep fighting? (I realize this perception is colored by how it played out in WWII so I'm curious whether it would also apply to WWI)
        vkou 9y ago
        The British expeditionary force was tiny, and the Russians were smashed. Neither could have fought on in Europe after France was eliminated. Unlike WW2, it was also not an existential war - it was just another European conflict. An armistice gets signed, the losers pay reparations, everybody goes home.
        WesleyLivesay 9y ago
        I think the comment above is questioning the belief that France would have packed it in and called it a day if Paris was captured (I believe the answer is no) not what would have happened if France was out of the war.
        vkou 9y ago
        In that case, they underestimate the importance of Paris as a center of bureaucracy, logistics, communication, as well as that of the fortifications between it and the border. France may have been able to hold on for a while longer, but losing Paris would have almost certainly made an armistice the preferable option. It would not have been able to regain its territory, its industrial output and manpower would have been dwarfed by Germany, and its allies were in no position to offer assistance.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > It is also worth remembering that everybody thought the war in 1914 would be short, there were very few people who thought it would drag out for years. The war happened because of that, largely (and the related belief that it would not only be short, but heavily favor the aggressor—a belief often referred to as "offense dominance"—which is why the first beginnings of readiness in response to crises set off an unstoppable rush to war.)

bluejekyll 9y ago

Well, even if you do divide it in half, that's still a rate of death of 500,000 a year. So using that as a way of estimating deaths of another conflict, it should have been enough to stop an actual war. That requires the people ruling the countries to actually care about the effects this would have on their own populations... Sadly, even using that as an estimate it would have been off by more than half of how many would actually die.

WesleyLivesay 9y ago
Absolutely! I don't think your conclusions are wrong, it is pretty crazy that they would make that large of an error in the article. I assume they mixed up "missing" and "captured". It is also worth remembering that everybody thought the war in 1914 would be short, there were very few people who thought it would drag out for years. All involved probably did some mental math based on actions like the the Franco-Prussian war and figured that the same level of casualties, or even twice as many, was worth it. If they would have known, which we do with hindsight, that it was going to take 4+ years of fighting it may have never happened.
- bluejekyll 9y ago
  Agreed, but did they have any reason to believe it would be shorter than the Franco-Prussian War? I agree, they definitely believed it was going to be over quickly, but why would they have thought it was less than 9 months (easy to assume 500K killed based on previous experience). In addition to that, you had two countries that were literally preparing for this conflict for years, poking each other around the world up to that point. I think anyone who thought it was going to be short, would have been completely ignoring all evidence that would have stated otherwise.
  - vkou 9y ago
    > Agreed, but did they have any reason to believe it would be shorter than the Franco-Prussian War? Yes. Germany came within spitting distance of Paris thanks to the Shlieffen plan, and was only hobbled at the eleventh hour by overextended supply lines. Meanwhile, the Entente was counting on the Russian juggernaut, with its millions of men to overrun East Germany. The Russians saw great successes against Austrian forces, but met a complete disaster when they engaged the Germans. As it turned out, the Russian empire was a paper tiger - completely unprepared to fight a war.
    - grotsnot 9y ago
      Would the war have actually ended early if Germany had taken Paris? With the British and Russians still unmolested on their own turf, wouldn't the French have tried to retake the city instead of surrendering? Or at least their allies keep fighting? (I realize this perception is colored by how it played out in WWII so I'm curious whether it would also apply to WWI)
      - vkou 9y ago
        The British expeditionary force was tiny, and the Russians were smashed. Neither could have fought on in Europe after France was eliminated. Unlike WW2, it was also not an existential war - it was just another European conflict. An armistice gets signed, the losers pay reparations, everybody goes home.
        WesleyLivesay 9y ago
        I think the comment above is questioning the belief that France would have packed it in and called it a day if Paris was captured (I believe the answer is no) not what would have happened if France was out of the war.
        vkou 9y ago
        In that case, they underestimate the importance of Paris as a center of bureaucracy, logistics, communication, as well as that of the fortifications between it and the border. France may have been able to hold on for a while longer, but losing Paris would have almost certainly made an armistice the preferable option. It would not have been able to regain its territory, its industrial output and manpower would have been dwarfed by Germany, and its allies were in no position to offer assistance.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > It is also worth remembering that everybody thought the war in 1914 would be short, there were very few people who thought it would drag out for years. The war happened because of that, largely (and the related belief that it would not only be short, but heavily favor the aggressor—a belief often referred to as "offense dominance"—which is why the first beginnings of readiness in response to crises set off an unstoppable rush to war.)