The Myths of Verdun - Dr. Paul Jankowski

This lecture was delivered at the National World War I Museum and Memorial's Symposium -- 1916 | Total War -- which was held in Kansas City, Mo. November 4-5, 2016.
For more information about the National WWI Museum and Memorial visit theworldwar.org
100 years after the battle of Verdun, so much has been told, re-told, written, sung, and filmed that sorting out the facts from the myths and the realities from the legends has become the essential to historical understanding. Over time, posterity has suffused the origins, experience, and stakes of the battle with multiple meanings. This lecture will consider the myths as well as the realities of the Battle of Verdun.
Paul Jankowski is the Raymond Ginger Professor of History at Brandeis University, where he focuses on modern European and French history, including the history of modern wars and warfare. In 2014 he won the World War I Historical Association Tomlinson Book Award for Verdun: The Longest Battle of the Great War and has since become a highly sought-after source for expert commentary and counsel regarding the meaning and impact of the Battle of Verdun. Jankowski has given talks at the French Embassy cultural service in New York, the French Consulate in Boston, the Public Library in Arlington, Virginia, and the World War I Historical Association in Norfolk, Virginia. Jankowski is the recipient of several awards including the Camargo Foundation Fellowship to France from 1995-96 and a Research Fellowship at the Centre National Research Fellowship, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique in 1992.

[@groovy_bear]

32:40 "Ils n'ont pas passé" actually means "They have not passed", which is grammatically correct although incomplete because the object is missing, as in an ellipsis. It could be, for instance, "They have not passed Verdun" or "They have not passed the door to France" as in the patriotic song "Verdun! On ne passe pas" written in 1916. Here "They" refers to the Germans. But more interestingly, "Ils n'ont pas passé" may also be read in a totally different way, where "Ils" refers to French soldiers and "passé" would mean "faded", meaning "They have not faded", their memory is still vivid and keeps shining long after they are gone. A grammatical error from those who designed the monument is still possible but I find it unlikely.

[@brunozzz2736]

There is NO grammatical error at all. "Ils n'ont pas passé" IS grammatically correct! "Passer" can be conjugated with either "avoir" or "être" depending on if you want to put the accent on the action (use "avoir") or the result (use "être"). In this case the intent is to focus on the inability of Germans to pass so it is the action... The object here is implied and leaves little to doubt. Passé is usually not used to imply faded/ forgotten. If it were the case, it would be conjugated with "être" as it is a state of being.

[@xylomeat9913]

The first myth that ought to be dispelled here is that Verdun was only one battle in 1916. Fighting went on throughout the entire war.

[@gandydancer9710]

@ELIE KOPTER ".... the French were involved in ALL WW1 battles..." Tannenburg? Gorlice-Tarnow? Gaza? Etc., etc., etc....

[@groovy_bear]

@@gandydancer9710 He implied on the western front, I believe it is fairly obvious.

[@alganhar1]

Fighting went on all through the war on the Ypres Salient, but we only count 3 Battles of Ypres. Normal da y to day operations on the Western Front were not, and never have ben counted as 'battles'. Otherwise we would be looking at the battle of Ypres, 1914 - 1918, as the Ypres sector was literally never quiet until close to the end of the war.....

[@carsonhaught9934]

Good talk with some interesting insight.

[@blathermore]

Thank you for this. I crossed Verdun and had cassoulet there on an Army bus tour at 22. I felt the ghosts laughing at us and probably having lunch too. That's the contradiction...war is hell, bug the soldiers are in Heaven where nobody hates anybody. I love the Monty Python sketch when a tweedy historian at a battlefield is making a video. His comfy wife holds the camera as he describes the place. Then an actual knight comes out of time and with a sword stops it. Thanks for not holding the soldiers at arms length. And for clearing up the Charlemagne story.

[@retrtadgfewr2645]

those reflections though

[@hoalex5329]

Verdun, he's the writer

[@claudeyaz]

Was always curious if more lenient and reconstruction based conditions on the loses of ww1 would change anything.. Or if economic problems in Germany would be inevitable?

[@gandydancer9710]

Your first sentence doesn't parse.

[@alganhar1]

After the Allies saw Brest - Litovsk and the conditions forced on the Russians I think any chance of leniency was gone for Versailles. Even then Versailles was little more than a slap on the wrist compared to Brest - Litovsk.

[@davidchardon1303]

Were the French really the spearhead of the allied offensive ? On the Western Front, the 1 November 1918 : French Army : - 102 infantry divisions, 6 cavalry divisions - 2,659,084 men , 630,440 horses and 80,000 trucks. - 5,578 heavy guns and 1,626 trench guns - 50,700 chauchats and 30,664 heavy MG's - 1,272 tanks - 3,609 planes British Army : - 60 infantry divisions and 3 cavalry divisions - 1,721,890 men, 388,00 horses and 19,000 trucks. - 2,197 heavy guns and 2,570 trench guns - 20,000 lewis and 4,632 heavy MG's - 611 tanks - 1,678 planes (!!!) American Army : - 31 infantry divisions and no cavalry division - 1,821,449 men and 151,250 horses - 746 trench guns and 406 heavy guns - 18,465 light MG's (most of them being chauchat CSRG 1918 and the rest being BAR's) and 6,239 heavy MG's - 91 tanks (lol) - 2,032 planes

[@ceciljohnrhodes4987]

Troll.

[@watching99134]

@@ceciljohnrhodes4987 Child.

[@aligator5837]

Most of US public believe that it's US who won this war, when their small participation for barely a year of fights at the end of this war in 1917, was almost anecdotal compared to the gigantic French sacrifice during 4 years, 1914/1918. US intervention, mostly caused by German torpedoing of US ships in the Atlantic Ocean, was useful, but was almost a farce compared to the French involvment of this war. Not even 120000 killed, half by disease, not even 2 months of Verdun losses, while French losses were 1,4 million killed and 4,5 million wounded in 4 years. For a population of 40 million. Entire generations. Without talking of huge civilian losses and destructions. Battles in which US troops took part were almost skirmishes compared to the Verdun massacre. About 1 million losses in 10 months on both French and German sides, with 60 million shells fired. Even 105 years after this carnage, around 50 tons of various explosives are still discovered every year in the Verdun battlefield area. An estimed 20 million unexploded shells are still buried here 30 feet underground , along with 100000 corpses. And the French were involved in ALL the WW1 major battles. Like in the Somme. Nearly half of the troops involved in the Somme were French. Without talking of other carnages like the Chemin Des Dames battle in 1917. 75 % of the Front was held by the French during WW1. In 1918, all Allied troops included US were under French high command. It was a French led coalition. All other allied casualties, for their relatively small participation, were nothing compared to the gigantic French losses. Except for the English. Who were the only significant contingent engaged alongside the French during 4 years. Many people forget, too, that German population in 1914 or 1940, 70 million, was almost twice the French, 40 million. Still a big lack of knowledge in 2022.

[@davidpryle3935]

@@aligator5837 Everything you say is correct. But you really should say the British, not the “the English”

[@gandydancer9710]

I've seen you spamming these lecture threads with this exact numbskulled and generally irrelevant comment multiple times now. Get yourself a life.

[@filipeamaral216]

Makes you wish another hour.

[@abbasnazary6759]

Filipe A marathon e1

[@oldguysdoingstuff6216]

Good lecture. But lip smacking, uh, lip smacking, uh. But otherwise thumbs up.

[@michael7324]

Old Guys Doing Stuff -Thanks, now I can’t un-hear the lip smacking.

[@johncorkhill7725]

What we see here is a writer being asked to give a talk. Two separate set of skills. Though I sometimes think that so many lecturers have grown up listening to talks like this that they think this is how to speak to an audience.

[@johnarmstrong3782]

It makes me laugh out loud when modern historians try to re write history.

[@Jackiezyon]

Exactly

[@jacquesaubin4454]

What's your point?

[@annadupont7615]

When you have some distance (i.e. less emotion) and increased access to primary sources, you can get a better understanding of history

[@davemacnicol8404]

@David unless facts aren't facts :0 Then they are myths.

[@watching99134]

Even more risible though pathetic are those who think everything they've heard is gospel truth, and historians only record events.