Don't know where you got that idea. We were just discussing the British, nobody said the French or Germans were any better. I even said somewhere that they all were equally bad.
How Europe Went to War in 1914
- Thread starter DonL
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
It was Haig who insisted that the British Legion be for all ex servicemen with no consideration of rank or class. It should also be remembered that Haig was behind the original Poppy Appeal.
He might have been an over promoted stuffy stuck up pompous moustache with an overinflated ego and a fossilised attitude to the French and modern technology but he did his best.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
I am asking why British high command is held to a different standard and why a non anglo saxon death seems to be of lesser consequence.
I think I will bail out of this discussion now before I say something out of order.
Again I ask you why you think this is the case in this discussion. I don't see anything the like being suggested here. But maybe I'm missing some subtile hints?
- Thread starter
- #205
DonL
Banned
To me both informations are new measured on the tradition.
Foch "won" Verdun because he did all what he can do to avoid wastages of his Soldiers.
For the Germans.
One of the most important rules of a Prussian/German General Staff officer was:
In a hopeless/difficult situation you have to retreat, to avoid needless casualties and to win back the initiative, under no circumstances you are allowed to let your troops batter to death. That's a long practised german General Staff rule.
General Erich von Falkenhayn has not a good reputation (more a bad one) at the german military history, because he was the originator and practised the bone crusher of Verdun, to fight an attrition soldiers life agaist the entente , which was elementary against german General Staff doctrine.
Last edited:
parsifal
Colonel
Monash oversaw the most expensive campaign the Australian Army ever particiapted in, yet he he was, and is, rightly respected as a brilliant tactician and effective leader. he too was revered by his men and his country after the war. Success or failure should not be measured on the basis of caulaties alone. Sometimes casualties are unavoidable. During the 1941 invasion of the USSR, the Germans suffered as many casualties as they did during the Stalingrad campaign that followed. As purely military operations, however, Barbarossa is generally considered a brilliant campaign that just fell short of its objectives because of insufficient resources, whereas the Stalingrad battle was a profligate waste of German resources insisted upon by hitler.
Haig does not stand up to that scrutiny. He was respected by his men, which is a good and noteworthy thing. He eventually led them to victory, and compared to some of the British warime leadership, was indeed a positively dovish leader. But all of this is smokescreen, designed for a specific purpose. to deflect the close eamination of his warime leadership, and his ability or otherwise to achieve results, regardless of cost. The cost of a campaign,especially in WWI can be forgiven, if there are tangible results achieved at the end of that campaign. At the end of the Some, the British and Commonwealth forces had lost at least 400000 casualties July to December, for amaximum advance of less than 8km. The ofensive was designed to crack the German defences, which it most clearly did not. It did very nearly crack the British Army however, and for this haigs performance is unforgivable.
I am no politician, and no left winger. i am an ex soldier, who has first hand eye witness and persoanal accounts of "haigs brilliance". I can tell you unequivocally, Australians do not think much of Haig ,
Haig does not stand up to that scrutiny. He was respected by his men, which is a good and noteworthy thing. He eventually led them to victory, and compared to some of the British warime leadership, was indeed a positively dovish leader. But all of this is smokescreen, designed for a specific purpose. to deflect the close eamination of his warime leadership, and his ability or otherwise to achieve results, regardless of cost. The cost of a campaign,especially in WWI can be forgiven, if there are tangible results achieved at the end of that campaign. At the end of the Some, the British and Commonwealth forces had lost at least 400000 casualties July to December, for amaximum advance of less than 8km. The ofensive was designed to crack the German defences, which it most clearly did not. It did very nearly crack the British Army however, and for this haigs performance is unforgivable.
I am no politician, and no left winger. i am an ex soldier, who has first hand eye witness and persoanal accounts of "haigs brilliance". I can tell you unequivocally, Australians do not think much of Haig ,
I would add that his overconfidence in shelling was a major fault. If he had studied the events in the battle of Verdun he would have known that. It costed 20,000 young men their lives.
But as it is clearly a sensitive subject for some of our anglo-saxon friends and I want to keep my neutrality I will stop here and I will try next to show some serious blunders in the other camps, for instance the Verdun battle. Just give me time I will have my dinner first
Bon appetit
Oh btw, I am usually a left-wing voter and not an ex-soldier. Sorry for that...
Last edited:
Trouble is, he needed to launch a major attack for political and military reasons and artillery was the only thing he had.
I'm left wing and not an ex-soldier, but I'm old enough to have known a number of British WW1 vets, and, as even I was surprised to discover, none of them held any grudge against Haig.
I'm not claiming Haig was a great general or even a very good one, but in relation to the senior generals in all the other major armies who fought in WW1 he was a lot better than modern popular opinion has him.
Last edited:
Okay, although we've gotten terribly off-topic, I will write something about the great plan of one of those other 'geniuses', General Von Falkenhayn.
In 1916 he thought that he could 'bleed the French to death' by attacking a position that the French would defend to all costs. He thought that would be Verdun. One of his ideas was that a great artillery barrage on a small front would make sure no Frenchman could resist when the attack came (where did we hear that before?). Sounds good, but he had overlooked a few minor details. First of all he planned the attack only on the right side of the river Maas, leaving his left flank open to the French artillery that were safely on the other side of the river. Another little thing he overlooked was that the terrain and weather near Verdun were anything but ideal, to say the least.
The result was terrible. The great shelling started after a few days delay because of bad weather (would not be the last time) and was bigger than anybody had ever seen. An for instance, an estimated 80,000 shells fel on the Bois des Caures, only 3 km long and 800m wide. But unfortunately for the Germans, the French defenders were still fighting and succeeded to drive the Germans back to were they started. So everything had to be done all over again the next day. This would become the pattern in the next 100 days or so. Repeated attacks, French bitterly defending and German and French bodies piling up under murderous machine gun fire. I will not describe the whole battle of Verdun, you can read that elsewhere. Conquering little villages costed thousands of lives on both side.
The Germans were under murderous artillery fire from the other side of the river, and they finally realized they might have made a mistake there. So the started an offensive there as well. Mort Homme and Hill 304 changed sides many times. After 100 days the Germans had lost 174,000 men and it was clear the whole plan had backfired. Instead of the French, the Germans themselves were bleeding to death. But as with Haig, these ubelievable losses were not enough for Falkenhayn to stop. The fighting went on for another one and a half month in worsening weather. Everybody has probably seen the terrible mud, preventing any attack to be effective. Only after the failed attempt to conquer Fort Souville did the German high-command realize their plan had failed. That was too late for 600,000 German and French soldiers. The Germans had gained nothing.
I would place Von Flakenhayn in te same league as Haig. One note: here the French displayed a stubborn defence in terrible conditions. Quite remarkable and should silence everyone who say that French always retreat.
btw. sorry for the 'light' way that I wrote this. There are no words fit for the gruesome truth that is war...
In 1916 he thought that he could 'bleed the French to death' by attacking a position that the French would defend to all costs. He thought that would be Verdun. One of his ideas was that a great artillery barrage on a small front would make sure no Frenchman could resist when the attack came (where did we hear that before?). Sounds good, but he had overlooked a few minor details. First of all he planned the attack only on the right side of the river Maas, leaving his left flank open to the French artillery that were safely on the other side of the river. Another little thing he overlooked was that the terrain and weather near Verdun were anything but ideal, to say the least.
The result was terrible. The great shelling started after a few days delay because of bad weather (would not be the last time) and was bigger than anybody had ever seen. An for instance, an estimated 80,000 shells fel on the Bois des Caures, only 3 km long and 800m wide. But unfortunately for the Germans, the French defenders were still fighting and succeeded to drive the Germans back to were they started. So everything had to be done all over again the next day. This would become the pattern in the next 100 days or so. Repeated attacks, French bitterly defending and German and French bodies piling up under murderous machine gun fire. I will not describe the whole battle of Verdun, you can read that elsewhere. Conquering little villages costed thousands of lives on both side.
The Germans were under murderous artillery fire from the other side of the river, and they finally realized they might have made a mistake there. So the started an offensive there as well. Mort Homme and Hill 304 changed sides many times. After 100 days the Germans had lost 174,000 men and it was clear the whole plan had backfired. Instead of the French, the Germans themselves were bleeding to death. But as with Haig, these ubelievable losses were not enough for Falkenhayn to stop. The fighting went on for another one and a half month in worsening weather. Everybody has probably seen the terrible mud, preventing any attack to be effective. Only after the failed attempt to conquer Fort Souville did the German high-command realize their plan had failed. That was too late for 600,000 German and French soldiers. The Germans had gained nothing.
I would place Von Flakenhayn in te same league as Haig. One note: here the French displayed a stubborn defence in terrible conditions. Quite remarkable and should silence everyone who say that French always retreat.
btw. sorry for the 'light' way that I wrote this. There are no words fit for the gruesome truth that is war...
Last edited:
But still he claimed it would be an easy walkover, while he should have known better.
I don't know what he was like as a human being. Maybe he was better than popular opinion, but in my opinion his performances on the battlefield don't show that. And if I have to believe Parsifal, the Australians agree with me.
Must have been interesting to talk to these people. Here in the Netherlands we did not have that chance. My grandfather was a soldier at the time, but only patrolled the Belgian border near Antwerp.
Last edited:
silence
Senior Airman
michaelmaltby said:
Far more American soldiers died outside of combat than during combat - roughly a 2:1 ratio - thanks mainly to disease. Combat casualties can be contributed to the use of outdated Napoleonic tactics as much as anything (IMO). I shudder to think of what the cost would have been with the general presence of machine guns.
General (and future president U.S. Grant) often gets vilified for victories based on sheer numbers and attrition, yet at the same time he was the C-in-C who won the war. Sounds to me that Haig had the same kind of issues.
Interestingly, Bobby Lee also had his share of butcher's bills, notably Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg, which may have broken the Confederate forces.
Apparently new scholarships suggests that American casualties in the Civil War may have been as much as 20% higher than originally thought.
If one wants to learn what it was like in the trenches I recommend these 2 books:
At the Sharp End: Canadians fighting the Great War, 1914-1916. Volume 1
"At the sharp end" features never-before-published photographs, letters, diaries, and maps recounting the devastation and triumphs of the Great War through the soldier's eyewitness accounts. This volume focuses on early battles of Second Ypres, St. Eloi, Mount Sorrel, and the Somme. The focus is on the Canadian Corps--the nation's 100,000 strong fighting formation that came to be regarded as elite troops with the British Expeditionary Force.
Shock Troops: Canadians Fighting the Great War, 1917-1918, Volume 2
"Taking up where 'At the sharp end' left off, 'Shock troops' follows Canadian soldiers through the final two years of World War One, 1917 and 1918. Using previously unpublished letters, diaries, memoirs, and official documents ... Cook captures the experience of battle through the eyes of the combatants. Cook chronicles the major battles fought by the Canadian Corps--Vimy, Hill 70, Passchendaele and the Hundred Days."
At the Sharp End: Canadians fighting the Great War, 1914-1916. Volume 1
"At the sharp end" features never-before-published photographs, letters, diaries, and maps recounting the devastation and triumphs of the Great War through the soldier's eyewitness accounts. This volume focuses on early battles of Second Ypres, St. Eloi, Mount Sorrel, and the Somme. The focus is on the Canadian Corps--the nation's 100,000 strong fighting formation that came to be regarded as elite troops with the British Expeditionary Force.
Shock Troops: Canadians Fighting the Great War, 1917-1918, Volume 2
"Taking up where 'At the sharp end' left off, 'Shock troops' follows Canadian soldiers through the final two years of World War One, 1917 and 1918. Using previously unpublished letters, diaries, memoirs, and official documents ... Cook captures the experience of battle through the eyes of the combatants. Cook chronicles the major battles fought by the Canadian Corps--Vimy, Hill 70, Passchendaele and the Hundred Days."
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Way too many eff-ups at Gettysburg, including Pickett's charge. The entire engagement turned into a dog and pony show from the moment of first contact...Portions of Lees units engaging and not recalling against Lee's orders, Stuart's unit out of contact and the list goes on. The Confederates had a golden opportunity to neutralize the Union forces and it was an opportunity lost. This certainly shifted the fortunes for the South, costing them both in manpower and put them on the defensive for the duration.
However, saying Lee was a butcher is far from accurate. He was far more cautiuos with his men than Grant or Sherman.
silence
Senior Airman
I'm not saying Bobby Lee was the butcher that Grant or Sherman were when it comes to sheer casualty count but there were few battles Lee commanded where the North lost a higher percentage of men than the South, notably Fredericksburg, Cold Harbor, and Deep Bottom.
- At Antietam the Union suffered 12,401 casualties with 2,108 dead - 25%. Confederate casualties were 10,318 with 1,546 dead - 31%.
- At Seven Days Lee had 95,000 men and lost 21,614; McClellan had 91,000 and lost 15,849.
- At Chancellorsville Lee had 57,000 men and lost 12,764; Hooker had 105,000 and lost 16,792.
Lee could win battles, but he couldn't win the war. If you think about it, its almost a reversal of Washington's situation in the Revolution.
What he really needed to win was a good supply of AK-47s and plenty of ammo.
Actually, I'm not terribly impressed with any general of the civil war, for any number of reasons.
- At Antietam the Union suffered 12,401 casualties with 2,108 dead - 25%. Confederate casualties were 10,318 with 1,546 dead - 31%.
- At Seven Days Lee had 95,000 men and lost 21,614; McClellan had 91,000 and lost 15,849.
- At Chancellorsville Lee had 57,000 men and lost 12,764; Hooker had 105,000 and lost 16,792.
Lee could win battles, but he couldn't win the war. If you think about it, its almost a reversal of Washington's situation in the Revolution.
What he really needed to win was a good supply of AK-47s and plenty of ammo.
Actually, I'm not terribly impressed with any general of the civil war, for any number of reasons.
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Not wanting to hijack the thread with Civil War discussion, but you can see a comparison between the Civil War and WWI actions.
After Gettysburg, the South went on the defensive and dug themselves in effectively. The Union went to great lengths to dislodge the Confederate defenders and this created protracted engagements that resulted in great loss of life. More often losses were higher for the Union as the Confederates had constructed effective earthworks in anticipation of a Union assault.
After Gettysburg, the South went on the defensive and dug themselves in effectively. The Union went to great lengths to dislodge the Confederate defenders and this created protracted engagements that resulted in great loss of life. More often losses were higher for the Union as the Confederates had constructed effective earthworks in anticipation of a Union assault.
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
Well said Redcoat. Modern criticism of military leaders is easily done with the gift of hindsight.
Haig Harris have been demonized but, I always ask the question 'what would you have done in the same situation if you were General Haig or Bomber Harris?'
I usually don't get a sensible answer to that... because IMHO there isn't one.
The American civil war is an interesting topic but, its not a 'world war' involving so many nations.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Very true, John but the lessons presented in the Civil War were lost to the Europeans. When the Confederates entrenched themselves, the Union's assaults became nothing more than a massive bloodletting and yet the Union commanders continued to send the soldiers foreward. Even with the use of railway mortars, pounding the defenders assisted the attackers to a certain degree, but when the smoke settled, the defenders would still appear to cut down the poor bastards assaulting the earthworks. It could have only gotten worse if the defenders had the infamous Maxim...
This was clearly a herald of things to come...
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
There were Dave. Like most lessons in history no one learnt any ****ing thing...
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Actually alot of parallels to the Civil War and WWI...one of the most tragic, is that in the Civil War, most believed it to be a quick contest (mostly a bloodless posture-fest) and they'd be home soon.
And who can forget the "Home by Christmas!" sentiment at the onset of WWI, accompanied by parades, cheers and a festival-like atmosphere as they marched to war?
Nope...seems like no one ever learns
And who can forget the "Home by Christmas!" sentiment at the onset of WWI, accompanied by parades, cheers and a festival-like atmosphere as they marched to war?
Nope...seems like no one ever learns
