3 ms·

> The failure of most Europeans to fathom the potential for devastation of the new weapons they were constantly devising owed much to their conviction that no m

by zeteo 8y ago

> The failure of most Europeans to fathom the potential for devastation of the new weapons they were constantly devising owed much to their conviction that no matter how rapid the advances, Western men were in control of the machines they were creating While the technology was different, I'm not convinced that WW1 was truly more devastating than previous wars. The wars following the French Revolution lasted much longer and devastated Europe from Lisbon to Moscow. The Wars of Religion before that were probably even worse. The fate of civilians, at least, was actually better in WW1 than in previous wars, as the armies were generally well supplied and disciplined and tried to behave in a "civilized" manner. As for the impact on soldiers, an Englishman fighting in Flanders in 1685 was just as likely to experience trench warfare [1], high explosives [2] and even chemical warfare [3] as his counterpart in 1915 - with far fewer comforts (medical care, consistent supply, news from home etc.). The real question is not how the war became so devastating (it was like many other wars in this regard) but why it was expected not to be. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Antwerp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Antwerp [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellburners https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellburners [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_warfare#Early_modern_era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_warfare#Early_modern_...

KineticLensman 8y ago
Perhaps people were expecting something more like the Franco-Prussian war (1870) than the American civil war.
m-i-l 8y ago
The Thirty Years' War[0] lead to the deaths of around one third of the populations of some of the belligerent countries. But that wasn't within living memory for anyone at the time. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War
scottlocklin 8y ago
WW-1 at the front was particularly brutal in comparison to the past in that millions died in a mechanical meat grinder and not a heck of a lot of territory changed hands. It also made the rest of the world look at Europeans (who until then were undisputed masters of virtually the entire world) as being, well, kind of stupid; ultimately unraveling the various political systems that had run the West since post-Roman days. Western civilization more or less died in 1917. We've been dealing with the consequences of this ever since then.
- maxerickson 8y ago
  The United States economic empire is the most dominant global empire that has existed. Whole cultures are vanishing into the maw. Western civilization isn't dead.
  - scottlocklin 8y ago
    It ain't Western civilization any more.
mandevil 8y ago
The difference is in scale. English Armies in the 80 Years War rarely got above 10k, and even the largest armies of the Napoleonic Wars would be 200k, and the British maxed out at roughly 100k. The BEF had an average strength of 2 million men, over 5.5 million were part of it at one point or another. Even though overall the British population increased by 4x (~8 million to ~32 million) they are deploying 20x more troops in WW1 than in the Wars of the Revolution. That's the difference between 'nasty to be there' and 'our civilization is a wreck.'
Diederich 8y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties#Casualties_in_the_borders_of_1914%E2%80%9318 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties#Casualt... was interesting, sorting by 'Deaths as % of population'. About 5% of the total population of the central powers was killed, compared to a bit more than 1% of the allied powers. About 2-3% of the total US population died during the American Civil War.

by zeteo 8y ago

KineticLensman 8y ago

Perhaps people were expecting something more like the Franco-Prussian war (1870) than the American civil war.

m-i-l 8y ago

The Thirty Years' War[0] lead to the deaths of around one third of the populations of some of the belligerent countries. But that wasn't within living memory for anyone at the time. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War

scottlocklin 8y ago

WW-1 at the front was particularly brutal in comparison to the past in that millions died in a mechanical meat grinder and not a heck of a lot of territory changed hands. It also made the rest of the world look at Europeans (who until then were undisputed masters of virtually the entire world) as being, well, kind of stupid; ultimately unraveling the various political systems that had run the West since post-Roman days. Western civilization more or less died in 1917. We've been dealing with the consequences of this ever since then.

maxerickson 8y ago
The United States economic empire is the most dominant global empire that has existed. Whole cultures are vanishing into the maw. Western civilization isn't dead.
- scottlocklin 8y ago
  It ain't Western civilization any more.

mandevil 8y ago

The difference is in scale. English Armies in the 80 Years War rarely got above 10k, and even the largest armies of the Napoleonic Wars would be 200k, and the British maxed out at roughly 100k. The BEF had an average strength of 2 million men, over 5.5 million were part of it at one point or another. Even though overall the British population increased by 4x (~8 million to ~32 million) they are deploying 20x more troops in WW1 than in the Wars of the Revolution. That's the difference between 'nasty to be there' and 'our civilization is a wreck.'

Diederich 8y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties#Casualties_in_the_borders_of_1914%E2%80%9318 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties#Casualt... was interesting, sorting by 'Deaths as % of population'. About 5% of the total population of the central powers was killed, compared to a bit more than 1% of the allied powers. About 2-3% of the total US population died during the American Civil War.