Was it ? I though the big battles like the Somme & Ypres were fought around trenches.
2007-12-13 06:07:07
·
answer #1
·
answered by Well, said Alberto 6
·
3⤊
0⤋
I suspect it's something to do with the concentration of British Empire, French and American forces and - in particular in the case of the U.K. - the deployment of "Service" (i.e. hostilities-only battalions) such as the "Pals", "Chums", etc. etc. Most of these units - in particular those of the "New Army" (which was comprised of Service battalions) - saw action primarily in the trenches. Consequently, the images brought back from the war by those who had joined up for the duration would've been - more often than not - of the trenches, whilst most of the casualties endured by the Service battalions would've occurred in the trenches.
Furthermore, the trenches were far closer to the United Kingdom than any other field of action except, possibly, the Dover Straits and North Sea naval actions. As a result, northern France and Belgium were easier to visit following the war than, say, places in what was the Ottoman Empire and were the places best remembered.
Also, it's worth noting that perhaps we see in the Western Front a far nobler war in terms of motives than that at sea (crush Germany's naval strength) or in Africa (take her colonies). I doubt that either of those motives was the primary one, whilst the defence of Belgium has been suggested as a pretext for war but, nevertheless, the Aquinasian "just war" idea persists.
Don't forget that many of the symbols of the war (such as the poppy) devised in the immediate aftermath of the Great War were those to be found on the Western Front, too.
2007-12-13 13:41:23
·
answer #2
·
answered by cig1705 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
It wasn't a very small part of it, the battles themselves killed more people in a short time than anywhere else, it razed the land where it happened, and it was the first time such damages were done to the land by a war. Until then people died, houses were burned, but the land itself stayed safe. Not counting the poisons used during that time (if you read the description of the effect of mustard gas on the men, you will understand why it marked the mind of everyone).
From Wiki Serbia suffered the most deaths % wise, counting soldiers and civilians victims of persecution when it was invaded, not the most land destruction.
2007-12-13 07:56:01
·
answer #3
·
answered by Cabal 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Whilst there were other battlegrounds fought in WW1, the true horror of the trenches in which the battles in France and Belgium were fought should never be underestimated. Almost a generation of young men were lost in the squalor and terror of those trenches. Rats ran rampant, men walked over their dead comrades in the mud. The horror was never ending. Then they were ordered 'over the top' which meant the scrambled out of the trenches into the enemy gunfire. Some ended up hung on the barbed wire which was meant to protect them. We should never forget this dreadful war and the sacrifice made by so many. RIP.
2007-12-14 13:50:17
·
answer #4
·
answered by Beau Brummell 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
The trench wars were the most horrific. Little if no headway was made. The entire area aound them was nothing but miles and miles of moonscape. Shattered trees, mud, rocks,,,almost no vegetation and what little there was had been torched anyway.
This is where the stalemate came in. This is no doubt why most people associate WW1 as being mostly trench warfare.
2007-12-13 06:14:06
·
answer #5
·
answered by Quasimodo 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
The western front was a very big part of World War I. it was the only theater in which Americans served. Beyond that, we live in an English speaking country, and our view of the war comes largely from the British. The vast bulk of British soldiers served on the western front.
2007-12-14 10:07:59
·
answer #6
·
answered by sjpatejak 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
"Why DOES everyone IMAGINE the First World War WAS ONLY FOUGHT IN the TRENCHES?"
Indeed, the battles that were fought in the trenches in France and Belgium were not the only battles fought from 1914-1918.
They just received more than their share of attention in the forms of books, magazines, and movies.
Since you have already answered your own question with the lesser-known details, I will not repeat what you have already said. One other important reason is that when the First World War was briefly taught to young students in the past, the materials used usually only focused on the battles in the trenches of France and Belgium as written by novelists, poets, and pacifists.
2007-12-13 06:34:52
·
answer #7
·
answered by WMD 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
Because the first world war was big and famous for the first trench warfare. Plus you would not take a picture while running across 'no mans land', you would be killed.
PS. think about the question a bit more, and learn how to spell.
2007-12-13 06:08:29
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Most of the war was stuck in those trenches. That period lasted for years.
Yes, there were battles in other areas that didn't end up in trench warfare, but they were not really the big or important ones of the war.
The war was really decided in those trenches.
2007-12-13 06:07:52
·
answer #9
·
answered by Yun 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
No, a very BIG part of it. The stalemate of the 'trenches' took a toll of young lives that we have never recovered from to this day. If the icon of the trenches is all that remains then it will suffice to remind us of the unecessary slaughter that took place.
2007-12-13 06:10:24
·
answer #10
·
answered by John G 5
·
1⤊
1⤋