Were the WW1 generals idiots?

[Meneldil]

There was a large number of bretons fighting, but I'm not sure there was a will to eliminate them.

AFAIK, by 1914, bretons weren't really a minority anymore.

[Tristuskhan]

There was a large number of bretons fighting, but I'm not sure there was a will to eliminate them.

Definitely not. Bretons are only the most ferocious people in France, something the HQ knew very well and used. Monuments to the WW1 dead in breton villages are impressive.

AFAIK, by 1914, bretons weren't really a minority anymore.

As a Breton myself, I could hear it as an insult to my kind, but nevermind... Definition of "minority", please?

[Meneldil]

As a Breton myself, I could hear it as an insult to my kind, but nevermind... Definition of "minority", please?

From what I understood by reading Eugen Weber, the assimilation process of various minorities in France was mostly completed by 1910. Britanny was probably one of the less assimilated place (notably because Corsica wasn't nearly as independantist back then as it is nowadays), but I don't think there were any strong movement advocating independance or separation, despite the local church's attempts.

Sure, some people didn't speak french correctly yet (I read something about a Breton soldier who was shot after a trial because he didn't speak the language and likely didn't understand the orders), but that's about as far as it goes according to Weber.

As for Bretons being the most ferocious people in France, well, if that's what you think, good for you

Edit: Though I'm not quite sure there was a will to get rid of Bretons and other supposedly bothersome minorities, Eugen Weber advocates that the national service was one of the main tools of assimilations for said minorities.
Throughout their three years in the army, Bretons, Catalans, Corsicans and Basques would have had to learn a proper french, cut their ties with the homeland and meet people from other regions, which supposedly created bonds with the nation as a whole, rather than with the local community.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Was there a deliberate policy to send minority soldiers to the frontlines? Nah, probably not. However, many 'minorities' had disproportionally large casualty rates.

There are several mechanisms at work:
- Working class, lower education, rural died at a higher rate.
- These characteristics applied to many of Europe's minorities
- WWI was not just a matter of nation-state vs nation-state. Nationalism was rampant - but which nationalism? WWI was also the spring of regions. Many of which gained independence after WWI, often after having sought it through sacrifice on the battlefield. Or the other way round, a feeling of having made sacrifices in battle bolstered regionalism, and was used to claim independence.

What I really need is some sources analysing the proportion of casualties in different countries, broken down into region, class, education. Alas, my google-fu is distinctly abandoning me today.


Some effects of WWI on regions:

1)

Definitely not. Bretons are only the most ferocious people in France, something the HQ knew very well and used. Monuments to the WW1 dead in breton villages are impressive.

Impressive indeed. Impressively large too. WWI has been a crucial, pivotal event for Breton awakening:

La Grande Guerre

A million Bretons answered the French call to arms in World War I. A quarter of them never returned. Bretons were killed and wounded at a rate twice the national average.
The wartime experiences of Breton soldiers and sailors had a contradictory affect on Franco-Breton relations. For many Bretons service in the trenches of Verdun or on the Marne was their first exposure to the France and French of other regions. Most of the veterans found the bounds of their patriotism now extended beyond the borders of their native province. Contact with the broader French society also accelerated a decline in the use of Breton and Gallo dialects. Others saw Brittany’s disproportionate share of the national sacrifice as proof that in the eyes of Paris, they were ignorant peasants fit only for service as cannon fodder.

http://worldatwar.net/article/brittany/index.html


2) Flanders. I do not know whether Flemings died at a disproportionate rate. I seem to remember they did. However, as with the Bretons, when correcting for 'rural, education and social class', the difference with Walloons is accounted for.

The Flemish Movement became more socially oriented through the Frontbeweging (Front Movement), an organization of Flemish soldiers who complained about the lack of consideration for their language in the army, and Belgium in general, and harbored pacifistic feelings. The Frontbeweging became a political movement, dedicated to peace, tolerance and autonomy (Nooit Meer Oorlog, Godsvrede, Zelfbestuur). Yearly pilgrimages to the IJzertoren are still held to this day. The poet Anton van Wilderode wrote many texts for this occasion. Many rumours arose regarding the treatment of Flemish soldiers in World War I (though mostly debunked by research of Flemish historians) live on and are part of the Flemish martyr syndrome. For instance, one such legend is that many Dutch-speaking soldiers were slaughtered because they could not understand orders given to them in French by French speaking officers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemish...nt#World_War_I

In Flanders, remembrance of WWI and the expression of national sentiment overlap:

The IJzerbedevaart (Pilgrimage of the Yser) is a yearly gathering of Flemings, at the IJzertoren in Diksmuide. This pilgrimage remembers the Flemish soldiers who died during the First World War and was first organised in 1920. It is at the same time a political meeting striving for Flemish political autonomy. The aims of the annual meeting are No more War, Autonomy and Truce of God.

3) The Anzacs. There is - to this very day - a strong feeling that NZ and OZ forged and deserved their independence and national identity on the European battlefields of WWI.


4) In the East, the empires that went into the war, fully disintegrated during and after the war. Russia, Austro-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire.
Arguably, regionalism is both cause and result of WWI in this part of Europe.

In Turkey, the Armenian genocide was part of WWI. Here is a clear example of deliberate use of the war to etnically cleanse a minority.

[Peasant Phill]

2) Flanders. I do not know whether Flemings died at a disproportionate rate. I seem to remember they did. However, as with the Bretons, when correcting for 'rural, education and social class', the difference with Walloons is accounted for.

The Flemish Movement became more socially oriented through the Frontbeweging (Front Movement), an organization of Flemish soldiers who complained about the lack of consideration for their language in the army, and Belgium in general, and harbored pacifistic feelings. The Frontbeweging became a political movement, dedicated to peace, tolerance and autonomy (Nooit Meer Oorlog, Godsvrede, Zelfbestuur). Yearly pilgrimages to the IJzertoren are still held to this day. The poet Anton van Wilderode wrote many texts for this occasion. Many rumours arose regarding the treatment of Flemish soldiers in World War I (though mostly debunked by research of Flemish historians) live on and are part of the Flemish martyr syndrome. For instance, one such legend is that many Dutch-speaking soldiers were slaughtered because they could not understand orders given to them in French by French speaking officers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemish...nt#World_War_I

In Flanders, remembrance of WWI and the expression of national sentiment overlap:

The IJzerbedevaart (Pilgrimage of the Yser) is a yearly gathering of Flemings, at the IJzertoren in Diksmuide. This pilgrimage remembers the Flemish soldiers who died during the First World War and was first organised in 1920. It is at the same time a political meeting striving for Flemish political autonomy. The aims of the annual meeting are No more War, Autonomy and Truce of God.

Firstly I wouldn't call the Flemings a minority in Belgium in the 20th century. There wasn't even a Flemish-Waloon' conflict as such. The real breakline in at that time was socio-economic rather than regional or cultural. The great divide between upperclass and lowerclass was the language. If you wanted to succeed in those days (in Flanders) you had to learn French.

The cohesion/cameraderie between the Flemish speaking front soldiers developed in a cultural movement that would later result in the emancipation of the Flemish speaking lower class, not only cultural but later also economical and political. This can be seen in the same light as the expansion of the right to vote.

Secondly, I doubt that Flemish casualties were disproportional. If it is the case than it's because of secundary factors rather than a deliberate act of the Belgian government at that time.

Thirdly, many rumours about the treatment of the Flemish soldiers may have been debunked, it stands without a doubt that the Flemish speaking lower class was surpressed by French speaking upper class:
- trials were held entirely in French, meaning a Flemish speaking party was unable to follow
- The Ijzertoren (symbol of the Flemish movement) has been dinamited twice
- Gravestones made for Flemish soldiers from WWI were removed and grinded up to make roads.
- ...

(I don't want to sound like a radical, and all this from wanting to point out that the 'Flemish minority' was actually socio-cultural)

[Snite]

This guy This guy came up with these guys. And though it was too late to change the tide of war, it certainly prolonged it past when it would have ended had he not done so. He also made it official policy and doctrine for even the lowest corporal to exercise tactical initiative on the battlefield leading to a much more effective German effort, but again, it was too late to change the inevitable outcome.