Were the WW1 generals idiots?

[Fragony]

Now that we have a few things going in various threads, it's often said that the ww1 generals were poor commanders, but what started as a mobility-war ended in a stalemate and it ended up as a meat-machine, what exactly happened here.

[Subotan]

Well, 78 British/Dominion Generals died in WWI, so although they may have been idiots, yoiu can't say they just sat behind the lines all the time.

And this guy was most certainly not an idiot. Mao, eat your heart out.

[Meneldil]

Though several huge strategic mistakes were made, I can't see how generals were idiots.

The defensive capabilities of the era far outmatched the offensive power available to armies. In these condition, any attack easily turned into a manslaughter. But what else could have been done?

[Fragony]

No idea but it became an exchange of life somewhere. There must be someone behind it who is absolutely clueless, we don't even have a satisfactory answer for how things came to be, let alone how it was played out, who was doing what ordering who. Charge? There are some cold people around.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The defensive capabilities of the era far outmatched the offensive power available to armies. In these condition, any attack easily turned into a manslaughter. But what else could have been done?

What else? Perhaps not stubbornly attacking all of the time then?

[CBR]

Can't really blame the commanders for the Western front turning into a long and bloody stalemate. The generals had been dealt a bad hand but still had to play the game, heck they had to learn the rules anew as the game had changed completely.

WW1 is quite a unique war with so much technological change.

[Subotan]

Note, when I said "may have been idiots," I didn't mean that I thought that they were idiots, but I was referring to the thread title.

[drone]

I've always thought that the US got a taste of the consequences of "industrial" warfare during the US Civil War. I suppose it's a lesson that did not make it across the Atlantic.

[Ironside]

Now that we have a few things going in various threads, it's often said that the ww1 generals were poor commanders, but what started as a mobility-war ended in a stalemate and it ended up as a meat-machine, what exactly happened here.

The defensive capabillities in form of machine guns and long range artillery completly changed the defensive nature of warfare from how it had been since the start of gunpowder. Added to that, logistics were heavily depended on your own railroad system, so basically all offensives ran out of steam while the defenders were operating through their inner lines by default.

So it basically took more than 3 years before good methods for breakthroughs were developed and offensive logistics were never really solved. How large change in the thinking needed is seen when the Americans came (vets from the US-Mexico war), who ignored the advises they got and had to go through trial by massacre before catching on.

What else? Perhaps not stubbornly attacking all of the time then?

And letting the soldiers fraternize with eachother and rebel against the high command? The breakthrough of the idea of eqaulity of man really came through this war due to what you mentioned.

I would guess that it was simply a lot of frustration. They were as trapped as a losing compulsing gambler, they had to play (politics, simply having a stale front doesn't work there) but didn't know any method to win so instead they threw away everything simply in the vain hope of a miraculous victory.

[TinCow]

WWI general were no more idiots than US Civil War generals. Both wars were fought at a period of time when technology resulted in a vast increase in firepower, but before there was a corresponding increase in defense technology. The result was that soldiers were faced with overcoming massed machinegun and artillery fire with nothing but their uniforms to protect them. A lot of blame is placed on nations for not realizing the potential of armored vehicles to overcome the technology advances, but I think that is distorted by hindsight. The first tanks did not reach the battlefield until the end of 1916, by which time the war had already stagnated. Even then, the first tanks were extremelly unreliable and the designs were relatively poor. Tanks did not really even become successful until the end of 1917, only a year before the war was over.

In addition, the idea that WWI was somehow more of a bloodbath than WWII is itself ridiculous. According to Wikipedia, in WWI, Germany lost 2,050,897 men in battle. In WWII they lost 5,533,000. Russia lost 1,811,000 in WWI and 8,800,000 to 10,700,000 in WWII. The UK and US cannot properly be compared, as the UK did far less ground warfare in WWII than in WWI, and the US was the opposite. When you compare deaths (both military and civilian) as a percentage of the population of the combatants, WWI resulted in the deaths of 1.75% of the population, while WWI resulted in the deaths of 3.17% to 4.00% of the population.

Essentially, WWII was far, far more of a meat grinder than WWI ever was. The only difference was that in WWI there were a larger number of casualties in a smaller area. That results in a distortion effect on the perceived bloodiness of the events. By contrast, the Battle of Towton in 1461 resulted in the death of approximately 1% of the entire population of England, and that was in a single day. Yet when we think of the bloodiness of wars, no one ever ranks the Wars of the Roses up there with WWI, despite similar impacts on the population.

[al Roumi]

I've always thought that the US got a taste of the consequences of "industrial" warfare during the US Civil War. I suppose it's a lesson that did not make it across the Atlantic.

Ha! If so, there's not much evidence to suggest it's a lesson they properly learned or carried accross the ocean themselves. The US expeditionary force is known to have had a "steep learning curve" in its first months on the Western front...

[drone]

Ha! If so, there's not much evidence to suggest it's a lesson they properly learned or carried accross the ocean themselves. The US expeditionary force is known to have had a "steep learning curve" in its first months on the Western front...

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.

[al Roumi]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

WWI general were no more idiots than US Civil War generals. Both wars were fought at a period of time when technology resulted in a vast increase in firepower, but before there was a corresponding increase in defense technology. The result was that soldiers were faced with overcoming massed machinegun and artillery fire with nothing but their uniforms to protect them. A lot of blame is placed on nations for not realizing the potential of armored vehicles to overcome the technology advances, but I think that is distorted by hindsight. The first tanks did not reach the battlefield until the end of 1916, by which time the war had already stagnated. Even then, the first tanks were extremelly unreliable and the designs were relatively poor. Tanks did not really even become successful until the end of 1917, only a year before the war was over.

In addition, the idea that WWI was somehow more of a bloodbath than WWII is itself ridiculous. According to Wikipedia, in WWI, Germany lost 2,050,897 men in battle. In WWII they lost 5,533,000. Russia lost 1,811,000 in WWI and 8,800,000 to 10,700,000 in WWII. The UK and US cannot properly be compared, as the UK did far less ground warfare in WWII than in WWI, and the US was the opposite. When you compare deaths (both military and civilian) as a percentage of the population of the combatants, WWI resulted in the deaths of 1.75% of the population, while WWI resulted in the deaths of 3.17% to 4.00% of the population.

Essentially, WWII was far, far more of a meat grinder than WWI ever was. The only difference was that in WWI there were a larger number of casualties in a smaller area. That results in a distortion effect on the perceived bloodiness of the events. By contrast, the Battle of Towton in 1461 resulted in the death of approximately 1% of the entire population of England, and that was in a single day. Yet when we think of the bloodiness of wars, no one ever ranks the Wars of the Roses up there with WWI, despite similar impacts on the population.

The commanders of WW1 looked stupid because they used inappropriate tactics -based on old situations: the old adage that military planners are always preparing for the last war they fought.

This raises an interesting point, as relevant today as ever before, the commanders at the end of a conflict in which a major new technological/strategic challenge was faced always have a better reputation than those who were in command at the start of it: eg Gen. Petreus enjoys a much better reputation than Tommy Franks... ok, not sure how far i can push that but...

[al Roumi]

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.

[sorry for double post]

I think that might still be a bit shortsighted a claim -it would make the early months of the US expeditionary force's engagement appear even more of a senseless waste.

Having awareness of an issue and ignoring it is probably worse than blundering into it unawares.

[drone]

Having awareness of an issue and ignoring it is probably worse than blundering into it unawares.

I don't think it was ignored, we stayed out of the abattoir for 3 years.

Pershing kept the US units separate, which led to the initial high casualties as vital experience was developed. I imagine a large part of his decision was to prevent the British and French from using the new units as fodder.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Pershing kept the US units separate, which led to the initial high casualties as vital experience was developed. I imagine a large part of his decision was to prevent the British and French from using the new units as fodder.

Dang it, so they were onto us after all.



Just to throw a bomb in here: did the Americans use the trenches to etnically cleanse their minorities? France, Britain and Belgium did with the Bretons, Welsh and Flemings respectively...

[Subotan]

Just to throw a bomb in here: did the Americans use the trenches to etnically cleanse their minorities?

Generally, no, as America was then so racist it didn't trust blacks with guns, as they would allegedly break ranks and rout at the mere sight of a German due to inferior nature, so they were often confined to manual labour. Total nonsense of course, and the few black regiments that did see combat fought with no less distinction then their white counterparts.

France, Britain and Belgium did with the Bretons, Welsh and Flemings respectively...

That actually happened?

[drone]

Just to throw a bomb in here: did the Americans use the trenches to etnically cleanse their minorities? France, Britain and Belgium did with the Bretons, Welsh and Flemings respectively...

Even more diabolical. We gave black units to the French to do it for us.

[TinCow]

The commanders of WW1 looked stupid because they used inappropriate tactics -based on old situations: the old adage that military planners are always preparing for the last war they fought.

They're only inappropriate if there was an alternative that was more appropriate. WWI occurred at an odd period of time when firepower had been greatly increased, but mobility had not. Cavalry were no longer useful due to their vulnerability to modern weapons, but automobile technology was still extremely primitive and was particularly poor at handling off-road terrain, which is required on the battlefield. Amphibious and air technology were equally primitive, and did not allow for rapid flanking by large-scale coastal landings (see Gallipoli) or paradrops for similar reasons. As such, it was essentially impossible to move men quickly enough to flank an enemy position before the enemy could adjust their own forces to defend the threatened spot. You need look no farther than the Race to the Sea in 1914, to see this in effect. The result was stupendously long, heavily defended infantry lines that could only be approached directly.

Under such circumstances, without a technological ability to flank the enemy on any significant scale, the only real option was frontal assault. Given the amount of firepower that the enemy could put down, this in turn required attacks with huge numbers of men just to make sure that some of them got through. The only other option I see in such a situation is just not fighting at all... which isn't a strategy that tends to win wars.

When I think of stupid commanders, I think of people like Phillip VI at Crecy or Custer at Little Big Horn. Stupid commanders are those who had plenty of legitimate options about how to deal with an enemy that had a particular known fighting style, but simply chose to ignore those options and suffered defeat as a result. In WWI, most battles had no options except a frontal assault. It seems unfair to blame the generals for those failures when they did not have the ability to achieve victory by other means.

[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.

[Meneldil]

Essentially, WWII was far, far more of a meat grinder than WWI ever was.

I agree in a way. For a starter, the battle of France was more deadly than the Marnes in 1914.

But there are several things that make WWI terrible, such as:
- the living conditions of the soldiers.
- the stubborn and pointless attacks launched against heavily defended lines, that resulted in the death of millions of young people who had no choice but to join their respective national army.
- the fact that the average Michel had really no reason to kill/get killed by the average Gunther.
- the shooting for the example.

All in all, if I had to live a war as a rank and file soldier, I'd take WWII over WWI anytime (except if it comes to the Eastern Front or China).

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Though several huge strategic mistakes were made, I can't see how generals were idiots.

The defensive capabilities of the era far outmatched the offensive power available to armies. In these condition, any attack easily turned into a manslaughter. But what else could have been done?

Well, 78 British/Dominion Generals died in WWI, so although they may have been idiots, yoiu can't say they just sat behind the lines all the time.

And this guy was most certainly not an idiot. Mao, eat your heart out.

I agree with both of these posts.

[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?

[Quintus.JC]

Well, 78 British/Dominion Generals died in WWI, so although they may have been idiots, yoiu can't say they just sat behind the lines all the time.

And this guy was most certainly not an idiot. Mao, eat your heart out.

Arthur Currie and von Mackensen. Two legendary commanders that enjoyed less legacy then they deserved.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Just to throw a bomb in here: did the Americans use the trenches to etnically cleanse their minorities? France, Britain and Belgium did with the Bretons, Welsh and Flemings respectively...

I've never heard of any of these, and though the French and Belgians may be simply because I haven't studied the issue enough, I never heard of a campaign to actually eliminate the Welsh.

[drone]

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.

[A Very Super Market]

Why the Welsh? Probably the least troublesome of the Islanders, really.

In any case, it wouldn't be efficient to do so. British nationals outnumbered the Welsh, Scottish, and Irish by a fair amount, and it would be truly stupid to leave a line undermanned for the sake of getting a certain group of people killed.

In fact, the valued Scots of the British Army took the highest proportional casualties on the Allied side (Apart from the Serbians, who sunk their entire population into the war)

[econ21]

... it's often said that the ww1 generals were poor commanders, but what started as a mobility-war ended in a stalemate and it ended up as a meat-machine, what exactly happened here.

The view of the WW1 generals as donkeys does not quite square with their overseeing the technological change that CBR mentioned. They were looking for solutions to the stalemate, but there were none available "off the peg".

I think the military at the start of the war could be faulted for not having learnt sufficiently from previous conflicts - such as the ACW (which ended in trenchwarfare) and the Russo-Japanese war (which showed the power of machine guns and heavy artillery). There was still a fair amount of pseudo-Napoleonic claptrap about bayonet charges and closed formations etc. It's not just a failure to understand the technology, but also to anticipate the scale. Reared on professional armies, it was probably hard to envisage that mass mobilisation would permit the entire length of Western Europe to be defended in depth. It's still rather a mind-boggling fact today. Even then, the venerable Schlieffen Plan can hardly be faulted for failing to seek a solution to gridlock. But once the stalemate and trench warfare started, my impression is that the factions were rather quick to seek ways to overcome it.

Perhaps not stubbornly attacking all of the time then?

Reading about even the most bloody encounters such as the Somme and the Verdun in the past, my recollection was that casualties were more evenly divided between attackers and defenders than one might expect. So it's not that obvious that greater passivity would have substantially reduced losses. Attacking gives you the advantage of initial concentration of force and suprise, I guess. Plus the defenders have to counter-attack to stabilise the front.

However, more generally, I think the logic of war demands generals who are fighters. The public, the politicians and perhaps even the soldiers require it. Like with the ACW, when Lincoln kept sacking generals until he could find a brawler like Grant who was prepared to accept terrible losses and keep attacking aggressively. There's a pressure for victory, particularly given that losses are already so horrific, so there were always schemes for a key breakthrough. I guess on the Western Front during the middle part of the war, the French and British were in the position similar to that of the Union in the ACW - they had to go on the offensive. After 1914, the Germans switched to fighting defensively in the West, looking to get a knockout blow in the East. Then the boot was on the other foot, with the Germans desperate for victory in the West before millions of Americans arrived to swing the balance. Given the Russian revolution and the logic of American entry, it is hard to fault either side for their alternating aggressive stances.

I suspect that a proper answer to the question would identify some WW1 generals who were plain bloody minded and lacking in imagination (I'd look at the Italians for some culprits here) while others who adapted rather successfully (Ludendorf comes to mind at a strategic level; Rommel at a tactical one).

[Megas Methuselah]

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.

It's been hammered into my head by the Canadian education system that the Canadian Expeditionary Force in WW1 developed a deserved reputation as an elite unit, and was thus frequently used in heavy fighting.

[A Very Super Market]

I thought you meant colonials as in "Africans". The Commonwealth was more or less seen as a proper fighting force, probably because they were equipped to the same standard, and not given pointed sticks to fight the enmy with.