Were the WW1 generals idiots?

[al Roumi]

I've always thought that there was a sense that the colonials were second-class citizens to the British command, and therefore somewhat disposable. Hence another reason Pershing wouldn't relinquish command of American units. I have no idea is there is any truth to this though, could just be griping from the Canadians/Aussies/Kiwis/etc.

Not really, in both WW1 and WW2 the Anzac forces (Australians & New Zealanders) as well as Canadians were a vital part of the British army. If anything, the Anzac's were considered much better soldiers than British Tommys -who tended to be physicaly smaller (apparently).

The contribution of non-white soldiers in both wars is not at all well recognised in Britain. Only now is it starting to be properly considered.

AFAIK, in both WW1 and WW2, the main body of British troops deployed to fight in Egypt/North Africa/middle east were colonial/commonwealth: from Aus, NZ and India.

As to killing off British/colonial minorities, I'd say that was unsubstantiated hogwash -certainly when it comes to white ethnic groups. Sikhs were also a well renowned part of the British Army AFAIK. Can't vouch for where and how units were used though -Ghurkas already enjoyed a great reputation in WW2.

[CBR]

I didn't say the US had the tactics, we just knew what full-scale industrial slaughter was like. I don't think the European WWI generals had any idea what they were getting themselves into, and many failed to adapt.

I just don't see much "full-scale industrial slaughter" in the ACW. It was really no different than earlier or contemporary wars in Europe.

I'm sure one can look at statistics in all kinds of ways but the Union army had a total of 388,000 battle related casualties. France in WW1 with a population nearly twice of the Union states and with a war of same length had about 14 times the casualties. USA had in just 6 months of combat about 260,000 casualties in WW1.

Some WW1 generals might have entered the war with a highly optimistic view of how quickly it could be decided, some, like Moltke a few decades earlier, had a rather pessimistic view though. One could argue that the use of field fortifications in the later part of the ACW was similar to WW1 and yet the circumstances were very different.

Afterall the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 was de facto finished in just 4 weeks of heavy fighting even though the armies had more lethal weaponry than seen in the ACW. There the French did dig in and yet lost to outflanking and especially German artillery that shelled the French out of their positions.

Even when the stalemate appeared in WW1 it technically did not even stay the same as the defense also changed to make it more difficult to attack: more machineguns, longer range artillery, the effect of numerous craters turning everything into mud, the concept of deep defense and local counter attacks to repel exhausted attackers etc.

So yes they did not know what they were getting themselves into but IMO they did try to adapt, but new technologies, and more of it, and tactics had to be developed while they were still trying to fight a war and defeat an opponent that also changed his ways to defend.


CBR

[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.

[drone]

Not really, in both WW1 and WW2 the Anzac forces (Australians & New Zealanders) as well as Canadians were a vital part of the British army. If anything, the Anzac's were considered much better soldiers than British Tommys -who tended to be physicaly smaller (apparently).

I agree that they were vital. By "second-class", I mean were they used/misused in place of British units when high casualties were expected? I don't know if this was the case, it's just a sense that I get.

[A Very Super Market]

Absolutely not. The British army was simply too small to undergo an offensive independent of commonwealth support. At Gallipoli, the Brits outnumbered and took heavier casualties than the Anzacs and French, same as the Somme, and only smaller operations (Like Vimy Ridge) were given separately to the commonwealth.

WWI was a strange war in that not only the lower class were recruited. In fact, the British had to turn down some of the labourers that flocked to the recruiting office, since their loss would severely impact Britain's war economy. The rampant nationalism was instead directed to a more middle-class recruitment pool.

[drone]

Ah, thanks.

[TinCow]

WWI was a strange war in that not only the lower class were recruited. In fact, the British had to turn down some of the labourers that flocked to the recruiting office, since their loss would severely impact Britain's war economy. The rampant nationalism was instead directed to a more middle-class recruitment pool.

What you touch on here is the final death-knell of chivalric warfare and the introduction of total war. Even after the Napoleonic wars, the 19th Century conflicts retained an air of honorable respect between combatants. This was mainly noticeable amongst the noble classes. Prior to WWI, it was not uncommon for captured enemy officers to be wined and dined by their captors and treated extraordinarily well. That was a hold-over from the ancient traditions of warfare where the nobility commanded and the commoners fought. In such a situation, often enemy commanders would have more in common with each other than they would with their own soldiers. Thus, there was a camaraderie amongst the leadership even when they were on opposite sides of a battle.

Despite it being largely focused on the elite of society, it also bled over into general society. War was considered a noble and civil enterprise with proper rules and actions to be followed. It was a contest between selected adversaries with limited combatants who would meet on a field of battle and resolve the dispute with arms. While this notion never (even during the Age of Chivalry) accurately reflected warfare, it was a romantic notion that was strongly held by many peoples. This is why many Americans rode out with picnic baskets to watch First Manassas in 1861.

In WWI, the idea of honorable warfare continued to exist right up through the early hostilities. Many Brits went over to the continent in 1914 expecting to watch the battles as spectators. This kind of sentimentality amongst the troops is also what led to the Christmas Truce. After 1914, though, these things largely disappeared in ground combat and amongst the civilians. They were heavily discouraged by military leadership, and they were also the result of the brutality of the new weapons that were being used.

Interestingly, chivalric warfare did hang on in one odd area during WWI: air combat. Pilots in WWI behaved very much as knights of old, and would honor and celebrate their enemies, both in life, capture, and death. von Richthofen was buried will full military honors by the Australian squadron that found his body, including 6 men of Captain rank as pallbearers, a honor-guard salute, and the presentation of memorials from other nearby squadrons.

There were even hints of this kind of attitude towards warfare in WW2, particularly amongst the officer class. The old Prussian officer corps of the German Army and large sections of the British military were particularly notable for their respectful behavior towards captured adversaries, even in the midst of horrendous warfare. It is essentially the last vestiges of a notion that are perhaps best known through the Combat of the Thirty.

[aimlesswanderer]

I remember my history teacher (who didn't know very much, since he was mostly a physical ed teacher) say that the British generals were a bunch of upper class incompetents who failed to learn and therefore got vast numbers of people killed needlessly charging machine guns. He also said that the official British war history was mostly a work of creative writing, and was "discredited", unlike ours of course. And if you talk to some Aussies they think that we nearly won the war by ourselves, and it was only the silly Brits who stuffed up at Gallipoli (wrong beach!), or else we would have conquered the whole of Turkey! Umm, yeah, right.

Disturbingly, many Australians don't know much at all about WWI, mostly just Gallipoli thanks to ANZAC day and the accompanying media hoopla.

[Pannonian]

I remember my history teacher (who didn't know very much, since he was mostly a physical ed teacher) say that the British generals were a bunch of upper class incompetents who failed to learn and therefore got vast numbers of people killed needlessly charging machine guns. He also said that the official British war history was mostly a work of creative writing, and was "discredited", unlike ours of course. And if you talk to some Aussies they think that we nearly won the war by ourselves, and it was only the silly Brits who stuffed up at Gallipoli (wrong beach!), or else we would have conquered the whole of Turkey! Umm, yeah, right.

Disturbingly, many Australians don't know much at all about WWI, mostly just Gallipoli thanks to ANZAC day and the accompanying media hoopla.

Doctrine developed as the war went on. The original BEP was capable of sophisticated tactics, but was almost completely gone by the end of 1914. In place of the experienced professionals, the British Army expanded, for the first time in its history, into a massed conscript army, that saw its first campaign at the Somme in 1916. The tactics that were used were necessarily constrained by the use of recruits who weren't experienced in war, but had to follow prescribed doctrine rather than be given the freedom to follow the feel of any particular action. Before the collapse in the Michael Offensive, the only thing the British High Command did on the Western Front that follows the accepted history was their continuation of the Passchendaele campaign for far too long.

[KrooK]

Generals from WW1 - you are all making mistake. At the beginning. You are puting all of them into same level. As on most of wars there were some idiots and some intelligent guys (like Petain). Sadly highest commanders were generally weak - which (connected with mentioned into earliers post technical changes on battlefield) causes massive loses.

[Centurion1]

No they did what they could with the technology at hand..... there was no way to have a totally mobile war and you have to attack to win..... so thats WW1 in a nutshell

[A Very Super Market]

You seem to forget about the Eastern Front. Of course, the situation there lended itself well to sweeping attacks reminiscent of Belgium in 1914. Large tracts of flat meaningless land, excessive manpower reserves, even by WWI standards, it was a clear contrast between Easter Europe and the Western front. Cramped, with Paris a mere skip away, and the Ruhr in the other direction, there was nothing to give up.

[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.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Not really, in both WW1 and WW2 the Anzac forces (Australians & New Zealanders) as well as Canadians were a vital part of the British army. If anything, the Anzac's were considered much better soldiers than British Tommys -who tended to be physicaly smaller (apparently).

The Canadians tend to say that about themselves too, so either it's a national myth or the British were the worst soldiers in the Commonwealth.

[G. Septimus]

The Canadians tend to say that about themselves too, so either it's a national myth or the British were the worst soldiers in the Commonwealth.

Even the Special Air Service (SAS) were made of Australians, Irish, New Zealenders, and even French!!!
The Commandos to, so The best-soldiers were either the Germans, Americans , or French, the Brits only have talented Comanders (not that talented in WWI), and Those commanders mostly command ANZACs, Gurkhas, Indians, and some West Africans. so the Brits maybe the worst
The Brits:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

they only get their Asses in the media, and they don't kick-ass like the Americans

[Quintus.JC]

Not really, in both WW1 and WW2 the Anzac forces (Australians & New Zealanders) as well as Canadians were a vital part of the British army. If anything, the Anzac's were considered much better soldiers than British Tommys -who tended to be physicaly smaller (apparently).

Even the Special Air Service (SAS) were made of Australians, Irish, New Zealenders, and even French!!!
The Commandos to, so The best-soldiers were either the Germans, Americans , or French, the Brits only have talented Comanders (not that talented in WWI), and Those commanders mostly command ANZACs, Gurkhas, Indians, and some West Africans. so the Brits maybe the worst
The Brits:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

they only get their Asses in the media, and they don't kick-ass like the Americans

Let's not forget that the vast majority of Tommies in WWI were made of volunteers and other conscripts. Most had trashy day jobs and had little trainning when put to the trenches. The Anzac and the Canadians travelled across the globe to fight in Europe - they weren't about to sent milkmen and shopkeepers to the battlefields. The properly trained British Expeditionary Force did well in their actions. While for the vast majority of the Tommies, it was really a case of lions led by donkeys. Comparing the ordinary British field army against the Stoomtroopers and Gurkhas seem hardly fair to me.

[A Very Super Market]

Err, these Canadians and ANZACs were not professional soldiers, or particularily well trained for that matter. If they were, that would mean that a tremendous portion of their respective nations had been in the regular army (The figure for Canada would have been .8 million out of 7.2 million) in the years prior to the Great War.

This shouldn't even be considered. There were simply more Brits fighting, and thus, they get little recognition.

[Fragony]

While for the vast majority of the Tommies, it was really a case of lions led by donkeys.

That is pretty much how he german generals thought about the brits, even worded it like that, english troops were highly respected by the german high-command, their leaders not so much.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

The properly trained British Expeditionary Force did well in their actions.

If "well" is "better than the French" perhaps. Or at least the BEF on the Western Front...

[Quintus.JC]

That is pretty much how he german generals thought about the brits, even worded it like that, english troops were highly respected by the german high-command, their leaders not so much.

Ludendorff: "The English soldiers fight like lions."
Hoffmann: "True. But don't we know that they are lions led by donkeys."

True that, The British commander Douglas Haig was a massive disappointment; his medieval approach to 20th century warfare really shouldn't have made him Field Marshall. The English soldiers certainly didn't lack courage, but unfortunately courage don't win you battles. They were still massively inferior when compared to their German counterpart.

If "well" is "better than the French" perhaps. Or at least the BEF on the Western Front...

The original 'Old Contemptibles' were truely fit for recognition. At the battle of Mons they inflicted heavy casualities on the Germans despite being heavily out-numbered. They also played a vital role in slowing down the German advance through Belgium and France. Later on the BEF contributed considerably at the First Battle of Ypres - during which the majority of the old contemptibles were wiped out. And had to be replaced by a batch of new recruites. The BEF generally faded into the background when trench warfare was introduced, but their original contributions cannot be forgotten.

[Beirut]

and only smaller operations (Like Vimy Ridge) were given separately to the commonwealth.

You mean Canadians.

Byng and Currie handled that battle well, but that lump of dirt still cost us 3000 dead. Mind you, out of all of the battle of Arras and the Nivelle Offensive that went along with it (or the other way around), I think Vimy would count as the best fought and the best won.

As for the generals; some were out of touch, some were out of their element, and some, like Haig, were out of their mind. What Haig did at Passchendaele was nothing less than a crime.

[al Roumi]

What about Verdun... I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned yet. There are some arguments around for it being a calculated strategy to bleed France into submission, but also stuff questioning that as an original objective. Is this where the discussion might move from the idiocy to the immorality of commanders and their decisions?

[Fragony]

There are some arguments around for it being a calculated strategy to bleed France into submission, but also stuff questioning that as an original objective.

Isn't it always? Frontline warfare is a transaction of casualties. The german generals were certainly more cautious, the French were rather eager to run at heavily fortified positions.

[A Very Super Market]

Verdun caused just as many casualties to the Germans as it did the French. Not the best battle of attrition. The Somme was the British answer to Verdun, and it did end rather badly for them...

[G. Septimus]

well,
Verdun, and the Somme, were, WWI's most bloody Battles (the others were Gallipoli, and Ypers-3 of them)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Oleander Ardens]

I think that the war of 1870 already showed that frontal attacks against prepared attackers were even with heavy artillery support a mostly futil and very bloody affair. This led especially in the German army to a strong doctrinal support for rapid flanking maneuvers at a small and grand scale. Heck already Clausewitz noticed the increasing defensive strenght of skirmishing infantry. However only very few could have imagined the staying power of the trenchsystem combined with an increasingly flexible defensive concept in the face of such shattering firepower and immense manpower as in WWI.

OA

[al Roumi]

Isn't it always? Frontline warfare is a transaction of casualties. The german generals were certainly more cautious, the French were rather eager to run at heavily fortified positions.

Um, not exactly. Traditionaly battles are for fought for control of an area, an asset or something. Not with the express desire of killing everyone who might be able to oppose you.

[Fragony]

Um, not exactly. Traditionaly battles are for fought for control of an area, an asset or something. Not with the express desire of killing everyone who might be able to oppose you.

How does that coexist with your theory of bleeding the french dry? I didn't say kill everyone, I mean kill everyone until you won, hence a transaction of casualties. That isn't something I just decided it to be, you even kinda touched it however briefly as it may have been.