First, I would like to say to /u/Othais, that I am a huge fan and I love your work being based not on "coolness" of the weapon but actual historical usage and understanding.

However this is for the entire panel. Representation of history is always difficult for media; war is either romanticized or demonized, correct in technicalities or correct in spirit, or used as a vehicle to explore larger issues and concepts. While this is how media portrays warfare and specific events in war, how does WWI stack? Is there a particular piece of WWI in media that you find absolutely appalling? Is there one that you find is a go to for everyone? (This applies to all forms of media both video games, films, shows, literature, and music).

How much of an impact did the French mutunies of 1917 have on their overall ability to wage war?

Taking up the point about representation, if any of you are familiar with it, how did you feel about the 2014 video game Valiant Hearts: The Great War that tried to both create an engaging experience, be to some extent educational and provide a narrative that aimed to capture the immense Human cost of the First World War? Do you think the game was a success in doing the latter in particular, or were you not a fan?

More broadly: how effective do you think video games can be as a tool for education? Do you think video games have a real potential as a means of commemoration and memorialisation of conflict or historical trauma, or is it fundamentally inappropriate for people to try and make video game representations of such events - will they always end up having a disrespectful quality to them? Do you think the kind of game makes a significant difference in how appropriate a representation is as commemoration?

/u/Bernardito A few questions, if I may. How many colonial troops where present at the Battle of the Somme, and from what territories did they hail from? What role did they play in the battle, and what was their esprit de corps like? And a cheeky additional, if I can. Who was the highest ranked and/or decorated colonial soldier of the war?

Thank you for doing this AMA! It is hard to believe that it has been 100 years.

Here is my question dealing with movies. I never seem to see many films that depict the First World War compared to other major conflicts. The only one that comes to mind is All Quiet on the Western Front. Can any of you suggest a film that does show the Great War and would be considered pretty accurate?

How historically accurate is The Great War YouTube series?

In the 'new technology and outdated tactics' narrative, Napoleon is seen as the big villain (usually with some American exceptionalism -'US Grant didn't care about what Napoleon would do' or Basil Liddel Hart's partisanship, etc), with accusations that the generals were still stuck to Napoleonic tactics; how much influence did Napoleon actually exert on the strategic down to tactical thinking in European armies up to 1914?

Games, yay!

I am wondering – have there been any WW1 themed games in the interwar period? Like, war games, board games, or even just a popular line of toys or something like that?

Obviously in recent years (well, decades) wargaming covers virtually every era of history. But I am curious about the years after the war (and before the other one).

• an extra question, have there been any notable wargames, as in military exercise tools, not toys, in the same period? Like for example British commanders playing a serious "what if" about, say, the Somme, trying to come up with alternative theories or maybe testing new ones. Kinda like the ones they tried about Sea Lion after WW2 (or at least I think I remember reading they did!).

Hi!

What do you think Battlefield one does RIGHT (if you've seen some gameplay)

(We all know BF1 does things like not including the french and the speeds of tanks and such wrong, for gameplay reasons)

Hey - speaking of Canada and WW1 - in Canada our role in WW1 is commonly considered pivotal especially when looking at the time around Vimy Ridge. The proclaimed significance of Canadian actions has led to the so called, 'Canada's Hundred Days'.

From a non-Canadian perspective, how significant were the actions of the Canadian military in the war?

Can a specific event, or a series of events, or a particular time, or at least a somewhat defined "something" be shown as the source of the "oh no WW1 was awful pointless terrible everyone wanted it" treatment the war gets in popular perception?

Or is it just a growing combination of immediate postwar resentment to the destruction, followed by attempts at revisionism and reconciliation, and then strengthened by the postWW2 attempts to bring Europe closer together, esp. Germany back into the fold, so to speak?

It is as if a tremendous effort was spent on sort of whitewashing the history of the war, on absolving everyone and everything from its causes, horrors and outcomes, on distancing from it, disassociating from it, you get the idea. But I don't know whether that's sort of a natural progression, or chiefly the result of identifiable events.

Thanks for doing this AMA - a very diverse and interesting panel for sure! I have a number of different questions which hopefully some of you answer.

• How important have memories or shared cultural experience of World War One been in consolidating national identities in Central or Eastern Europe?

• What has been the main historiograpical change in the study of World War One in the past 30 years? Interested to learn on major changes to the study of the war in general, or any specific areas, i.e. cultural, military history, or the specific history of a nation, etc.

• What was the economic consequences of the war for Central or Eastern Europe?

• How was the experience of war in the homefront in Wales in Great Britain?

• What was the first World War One video game? Or game which depicted the war?

This question rests on some assumptions, so please correct any of them you don't think are quite right.

The dominant cultural view of WW1, at least in the UK, seems to be that it was a particularly appalling, wasteful, and poorly managed war. That's exemplified by something like Blackadder Goes Forth, but also in at least some professional history. I have a copy of AJP Taylor's World War 1: an illustrated history which is almost satirical in how scathing it is. (My favourite captions include a picture of Sir John French in top hat hurrying through London with the comment that he's "preparing for the retreat from Mons" and "Civilization comes to Africa: burning a native village in the Cameroons.")

This view seems to be challenged regularly. To start with, it is a view very much focused on the fighting in France (and Gallipoli), which I can understand. If I remember rightly, in his askhistorians podcast on WW1, /u/_elos says that the classic view of the war only really represents on particular phase of the fighting (1915-16?). Beyond this, is a broader critique of the tropes and the popular view of WW1.

So, what I wanted to ask was how this particularly negative view of WW1 became embedded in popular consciousness? When did it start? How did it spread through different fields - art, politics, historiography, and so-on?

A supplementary question is how views of the war vary across different countries - is this is a particularly British way of looking at WW1?

Where's the best place to look at WWI art? Do any of you folks answering questions have a favorite piece?

Also songs - are there any recordings of songs that came out of wwi? I hear the British sang a lot, especially early in the war.

Not certain who best to aim this at. But could anyone provide me any accurate figures on the number of pilots involved in the battle of the Somme, and do we know how many died. If you could tell me specifically the first day that would be much appreciated. I've had a quick google, and nothing seems to break this down. (to be honest its hard finding accurate figures for infantry deaths by regiment).

Following the war, what was the reputation of Douglas Haig among the veterans from the enlisted ranks? Was the reevaluation of Haig driven by a change of heart in the public, or was it veterans coming to terms with what they had been through? Would he have been called "The Butcher of the Somme" while he was still alive?

Cool to see a bunch of people doing a WW1 panel.

/u/DuxBelisarius Did cavalry prove to be of any general usefulness in the First World War at all? I mean, with the invention of the machine gun one would think it impractical.

Thanks to the moderators and especially to the panelists for a great AMA. These answers are all really interesting.

In G.J. Meyer's single-volume history of WWI, A World Undone: The Story of the Great War 1914-1918, the author portrays the situations leading to the outset of the war as a seemingly inexorable series of events that took on a life of their own, plunging the nations involved into a conflict that none of them particularly wanted. (Unfortunately I don't have my copy on-hand so I can't cite specific passages, and it's been a couple years so I may be distorting Meyers' intent.) One example I recall is Germany's mobilization plans, which (IIRC) were built around the assumption that Germany needed to invaded France at the earliest possible opportunity. Meyers seems to indicate that Germany couldn't mobilize its forces effectively without invading France.

With that in mind, a few questions:

• What is the prevalent perspective among historians today regarding the beginning of the Great War? Were the combatant nations all as unwilling or reluctant as Meyers indicates, or is that to some degree a popular myth?

• Related to the above, do you consider Meyer's portrayal of the outset of the war to be fairly accurate, for a single-volume history? Would you recommend any additional accounts of the historical context that led to the outbreak of war that are both accurate, and fairly accessible to a layperson?

What kind of equipment did cavalry on the western front carry into battle?

/u/Georgy_K_Zhukov What would be the typical day in the life of an officer and/or crewman as a member of an armoured train unit operating in a European theatre? Was this experience very different from those soldiers who fought in the trenches?

There are two narratives of how the German high staff reached the decision that they should surrender (or that someone ought to surrender for them).

There is the stab-in-the-back legend that they themselves worked up after forcing the new government to sign the armistice, debunked already in the 1920's. The discussion, then, defaults to Ludendorff-Hindenburg deciding to surrender out of absolute necessity. I have read however that the surrender was mainly Ludendorff's doing, was the result of panic, and that the German armies could in fact have held out in the field, enough at least to extract a better peace from the allies, perhaps even preserve the Monarchy. Though there was some unrest, the average German soldier, even agitating for political reform, was far too patriotic to quit the field. How much truth is there to that?

How well received is GJ Myers A World Undone account of WW1? Are the relationships and accounts of events generally seen as accurate? How about the casualty figures and figures given for the amount of munitions used?

What happened in the immediate aftermath of the War? I don't mean politically or high up the chain of command, I mean who filled in the trenches? Buried the dead? Collected in the barbed wire? How long was it until the land returned to farm land?

Hello fellows.

In brief, my question is about whether Douglas Haig was a hero (faced with insuperable problems, more creative than he's given credit for, and in the end not much worse than most other contemporary high commanders) or a villain (uninspired, stubborn in the pursuit of folly, slow to adapt to new methods, protected by intrigue and patronage)?

I must say I find defences of Haig to be fairly unconvincing (Terraine's work, and Haig: The Educated Soldier).

I was at the Menin gate yesterday and Verdun last week. Thank you.

Are questions still being answered? Didn't see this AMA until today :S

/u/CptBuck, You touched on the Sykes-Picot agreement briefly in another answer and said it is generally looked upon negatively.

Does it generally seem like the agreement drew borders to keep local peoples fighting amongst each other or did those who drew them not understand what they were doing?

Could the agreement have been intentionally made to hinder a power structure resembling the Ottoman Empire from appearing again?

I apologize for the too general question but as I haven't read any WW1 focused book, which books would you recommend?

My grandfather was at the Somme and if I remember correctly the only survivor from his tank. We have, boxed somewhere, the letter written to his father saying he was presumed dead and the letter explaining he had been found in a French hospital. He had a metal plate in his arm and head (and a glass eye).

I've read some historical references and watched documentaries to get an idea of what he and others went through. Thank you for doing this AMA!

Thank you all for doing this AMA. I have a couple of questions. /u/NMW, I'd like to know about your favourite WWI literature. Who are your favourite poets? Poems? I think we're all familiar with the more famous war poets like Sassoon and Owen, but are there any we might not have heard of? Finally, I remember at my primary school, we used to have 'singing assemblies' which were essentially giant singing lessons. I remember we sang old war songs like 'We're Going To Hang Out The Washing (On The Siegfried Line)' and 'Goodbye-ee', but I don't remember much else about them. Were these sung in the trenches? Were they popular songs on the radio?
/u/elos_, there tends to be this picture associated with WWI of out-of-touch generals ordering men 'over the top' as if they were fighting in hand-to-hand combat. I'm very much oversimplifying it, but the narrative basically says that men were gunned down in drones because machine guns were new and unfamiliar, and the old practice of going over the top was continued because of any/all of these reasons: a) those giving the orders had no alternatives; b) those giving the orders were stubborn or even foolish; c) it was thought that "one last push" would do it. I'm curious to know what you think of this narrative. Why were so many soldiers sent 'over the top' when it became clear that they were walking into their deaths?

Were there any major equipment upgrades between the outbreak of the war and the end?

How was WW1 started exactly? What singular moment set off WW1?

To /u/an_ironic_username -

I've done a decent amount of personal research on submarines in my time, but most of what I know is Cold War-era stuff.

I understand, however, that submarines were absolutely pivotal in WWII. Does this extend to the First World War?

How effective were WWI submarines at discharging torpedoes and such without being spotted, and what was the effective range of both the boats and their weaponry?

Did U-Boats rule submarine warfare during this period as they did during WWII? Were there many valid competitors, British or otherwise?

Thank you for doing this AMA! It's probably over, but I'll still put this here.

German general Erich Ludendorff is lauded as one of the greatest generals of the war, with his early victory at Tannenberg to his orchestrating of the 1918 Spring Offensives. When he took over as General of the Infantry in 1916, he brought a shift to the way the war in the west would be fought. Yet, even with his "elastic defense," the defeat of the French and British during the Nivelle Offensive brought the German army casualties that were close to those of the Entente. Was Ludendorff as great a strategist as the legend around him suggests?

There seem to be a few narratives surrounding the German goals and strategy at Verdun. Is this a disagreement that WWI historians are having? Is it settled? What is the consensus if there is one?

This question is aimed at /u/NMW or /u/Bernardito.

When World War 1 is mentioned in an African context, the most likely thing to be mentioned is the East African campaign, and the exploits of Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck.

The popular conception in the West tends to portray von Lettow-Vorbeck as a "gentleman", "the lion of Africa" or as a "badass".

At the same time, it is pretty rare for any mention to be made of the civilian deaths and deaths of baggage carriers that occurred during the East African Campaign.

What factors have lead to the enduring popular lionization of von Lettow-Vorbeck in (at least) the West? Do you anticipate a reevaluation of his legacy in the popular imagination any time soon?

When I learned about WWI in my history class in school, they only said that Russia had 'dropped out' of the war. Did the Allies at all attempt to halt/end the Russian civil war in order to keep a strong ally on the Eastern Front. If so, what actions took place, and if not, why?

What do you think of Christopher Clark's "The Sleepwalkers"?

Hello everyone! Thank you for doing this! I have a question about trench art. A family friend's father served in WWI on the HMS Bonaventure and had a book he gave me called a "signature book" filled with, as expected, signatures from the crew as well as doodles and sketches by various sailors. Were signature books a common thing on ships or other branches of service?

During the battle of the Somme and Verdun were some of the lesser known countries like Japan involved in the battles? How much of an impact did they make?

The film Paths of Glory has been mentioned several times already, but there is a book by Jeffrey Archer of the same name.

It is a novelization of George Mallory's life and his attempts to climb Everest. It deals with his experiences in the First World War. Just wondering if anyone has read it and has any thoughts on it.

I read a novel some years ago, whose title I annoying cannot now recall, about a Canadian lad who served with an cavalry regiment in Egpyt and Palestine. While a work of fiction, the author noted in the afterward that the main character was quite heavily based on her own grandfather.

Why has the Sinai and Palestine campaign seemingly been largely forgotten from public memory in most of the English-speaking world?

What about The Lost Battalion?

Has anyone seen it and what was your opinion on it?

What is a little known WW1 film that you would recommend?

Thanks so much for this panel! I've been fascinated by WWI since discovering Wilfred Owen and CRW Nevinson in high school and always love learning more. I've got a few questions.

First, for /u/NMW, do you have a favorite novel dealing with WWI? I'm a huge fan of Pat Barker's Regeneration trilogy and would love more novels that are similar. What books (not written during that time) best capture the feel of the war?

For everyone, what are your thoughts on the [new WWI memorial] (http://www.worldwar1centennial.org/stage-ii-design-development/the-weight-of-sacrifice.html) being built in Washington DC? Do you like the design that was chosen, or think they should just have made the DC memorial into the National memorial? What do you think is the best WWI memorial anywhere in the world?

Why did the "bite and hold- strategy used by the British in the beginning fail?

I have a question for /u/Othais, which I am trying to frame as gently as possible, so bear with me.

In about the last thirty-five years (beginning with Keegan), academic military historians and museum curators have tried to present the mechanical operations and the history of weaponry alongside the effects those weapons have on the human body. So, for example, the IWM has a facial wounds display which shows the effects of shells, as does the IFF and the Historiale. (Keegan actually had an anecdote about a museum curator who loved explaining how a shell in his collection was designed to explode. However the same man was disgusted when Keegan told him about how shells injured the jaw in such a way that the teeth shredded the victim's body.) The argument made since that time is that studying weapons divorced from their purpose not only is poor history, but acts to sanitize war in the minds of the general public.

So here is the question: when you do your videos, what philosophy did you use to underpin what information you'd present, and how it would be weighted? Was there a deliberate decision not to use pictures of the human body?