Ineptitude and cruelty of ww1 generals and officiers (2 Viewers)

[Poppo]

In my opinion this is what is to be remembered about WW1.

In ww1 there were among the most incompetent and cruel generals in modern history.They had modern armies but coudn' t find the way to unlock a situation. They sent their men in several unuseful attacks needlessly sacrificing hundred thousands of their own men. Many examples of this in the western front and Gallipoli front. The worst examples were in the french and italian armies ( less in the british one), were soldiers were sent as "cannon fodder" against the machine guns with no chance at all to break the enemy lines.
There were many rebellions and mutinies stifled in the blood, often with the infamous practice of decimation (a soldier shot every ten, taken at random).
Unfortunately, governments of countries like France today still hesitate to condemn the crimes of its officers to their soldiers for "reasons of state".
Some beautiful films on this subjet were made.

 

[Rob]

For decades people in this country thought our genrals did exactly the same with little regard for human life. However in recent years opinions have begun to change as the idea that British generals enjoyed sending thousands to their deaths has been debunked in most opinions. Whist there was indeed stupidness, stubborness, the failure to evolve tactics and appreciate modern weaponry and what it could do, the idea that they were all murderers who did not mindcwatching thousands die has no basis in reality . The terrible thing about WW1 was that it was the first truly mechanised war in which men drilled in some ways similar to Napoleons troops still advanced that way. But Napoleon never faced machine guns.

However there was of course episodes of breath taking stupidity which bordered on the crinally insane. The hundreds of US troops who died on the final day of the war trying to capture a town ordered to do so so they could have hot baths is a jaw dropping example

Rob

 

[wayne556517]

My grandparents hated Churchill to the day they died for the way Aussie troops where used.

 

[RPZ]

I think the some of the ineptitude can not so easily be passed off. The changes in warfare in regards to weaponry would have been blatantly obvious to any observers in the first encounters. Rapid fire guns were really nothing new.

The British had some of their hardest lessons in the use of small arms and crew served rapid fire guns in the "Great" Boer War. Their teaching institutions and commanders should have adjusted things accordingly.

The Irish units were thrown into some of the most brutal carnage up the slopes and hilltops in that conflict. Similar experiences at battles like Colenso clearly demonstrated the idiosy of needless exposure to effective rifle fire, and the sometimes negligable effect of artillery barrage against disciplined troops using good cover.

 

[Rob]

For decades people in this country thought our genrals did exactly the same with little regard for human life. However in recent years opinions have begun to change as the idea that British generals enjoyed sending thousands to their deaths has been debunked in most opinions. Whist there was indeed stupidness, stubborness, the failure to evolve tactics and appreciate modern weaponry and what it could do, the idea that they were all murderers who did not mindcwatching thousands die has no basis in reality . The terrible thing about WW1 was that it was the first truly mechanised war in which men drilled in some ways similar to Napoleons troops still advanced that way. But Napoleon never faced machine guns.

However there was of course episodes of breath taking stupidity which bordered on the crinally insane. The hundreds of US troops who died on the final day of the war trying to capture a town ordered to do so so they could have hot baths is a jaw dropping example

Rob

Apologies for spelling in that post guys, was written on mobile phone without my glasses on, a recipe for disaster!:rolleyes2:

Rob

 

[Rob]

I think the some of the ineptitude can not so easily be passed off. The changes in warfare in regards to weaponry would have been blatantly obvious to any observers in the first encounters. Rapid fire guns were really nothing new.

The British had some of their hardest lessons in the use of small arms and crew served rapid fire guns in the "Great" Boer War. Their teaching institutions and commanders should have adjusted things accordingly.

The Irish units were thrown into some of the most brutal carnage up the slopes and hilltops in that conflict. Similar experiences at battles like Colenso clearly demonstrated the idiosy of needless exposure to effective rifle fire, and the sometimes negligable effect of artillery barrage against disciplined troops using good cover.

But the thing is military tactics that have been used for decades are unlikely to change overnight unless a huge disaster unfolds before the eyes. Such was the battle of the Somme, tactic evolution sped up after that and a great example was the German use of shock troops during their spring offensive. I'm not defending all generals here but just putting another view, this is a very interesting subject that has been debated for nearly a hundred years and will continue.

Also the idea that generals were all hated by the men is another total myth (somewhat perpetuated by 'Blackadder ' ) Haig in particular was loved very much by his men witnessed by the thousands of them that thronged his funeral. He spent his life after the war raising money for his wounded comrades and their families etc. (in fact even when I was at primary school the Poppy fund was still called the Haig fund)

Finally another myth to destroy was the fact that the soldiers thought they were 'Cannon fodder'. The superb WW1 Author Lyn McDonald once told me that the men she had interviewed over all those years found this suggestion a total insult. These guys didn't sign up in their millions because they wanted to die, they went into it believing they were fighting for their freedom and their country.They were not helpless sheep to the slaughter, they were off to beat the Hun and Kick the Kaiser as it were.

Rob

 

[Rob]

In my opinion this is what is to be remembered about WW1.

In ww1 there were among the most incompetent and cruel generals in modern history.They had modern armies but coudn' t find the way to unlock a situation. They sent their men in several unuseful attacks needlessly sacrificing hundred thousands of their own men. Many examples of this in the western front and Gallipoli front. The worst examples were in the french and italian armies ( less in the british one), were soldiers were sent as "cannon fodder" against the machine guns with no chance at all to break the enemy lines.
There were many rebellions and mutinies stifled in the blood, often with the infamous practice of decimation (a soldier shot every ten, taken at random).
Unfortunately, governments of countries like France today still hesitate to condemn the crimes of its officers to their soldiers for "reasons of state".
Some beautiful films on this subjet were made.

Actually Poppo I'm not sure about decimation as in the way you describe it (ala Roman army style) but there is a belief that when certain French units either mutinied or refused to go forward at Verdun they were withdrawn from the battle for a while and then marched to a certain area on the front and then destroyed by their own artillery. Now I've no idea if this actually happened or not but do remember reading about it somewhere, perhaps Al can enlighten us on this?

Rob

 

[The Military Workshop]

Actually Poppo I'm not sure about decimation as in the way you describe it (ala Roman army style) but there is a belief that when certain French units either mutinied or refused to go forward at Verdun they were withdrawn from the battle for a while and then marched to a certain area on the front and then destroyed by their own artillery. Now I've no idea if this actually happened or not but do remember reading about it somewhere, perhaps Al can enlighten us on this?

Rob

Rob,

I think I prefer to be decimated than bombarded by my own artillery. Not heard of that before and sounds like a pretty pointless waste of men and shells.

Brett

 

[Jack]

But the thing is military tactics that have been used for decades are unlikely to change overnight unless a huge disaster unfolds before the eyes. Such was the battle of the Somme, tactic evolution sped up after that and a great example was the German use of shock troops during their spring offensive. I'm not defending all generals here but just putting another view, this is a very interesting subject that has been debated for nearly a hundred years and will continue.

Also the idea that generals were all hated by the men is another total myth (somewhat perpetuated by 'Blackadder ' ) Haig in particular was loved very much by his men witnessed by the thousands of them that thronged his funeral. He spent his life after the war raising money for his wounded comrades and their families etc. (in fact even when I was at primary school the Poppy fund was still called the Haig fund)

Finally another myth to destroy was the fact that the soldiers thought they were 'Cannon fodder'. The superb WW1 Author Lyn McDonald once told me that the men she had interviewed over all those years found this suggestion a total insult. These guys didn't sign up in their millions because they wanted to die, they went into it believing they were fighting for their freedom and their country.They were not helpless sheep to the slaughter, they were off to beat the Hun and Kick the Kaiser as it were.

Rob

Rob

I agree with what you say about the myths that have grown up around Haig. I think it was Churchill (or possibly John Terraine? I am away from my library at present)who said that Haig was not equal to the prodigious events he participated in but just as surely, who actually was? Monash is often named as someone who might have done better (mainly by Australians which is a shocker) but he was certainly very good, but could one man have made a difference? Was the right answer there for the taking and an entire leadership caste remained unable or unwilling to see it? Haig's view was that the victories of 1918 could not have occured without the slogging matches of 1916 and 1917, but this is exactly where I am most critical of him. He pursued the latter attacks on the Somme and at Ypres in 1917 when it was clear that the chance for a breakthrough had passed. He needed to be stubborn - there could have been no victory without that quality - but when men are drowning in mud you cannot continue to order an advance. He did not know when to cut his losses.

Could success on Gallipoli have made a difference? My heart says yes but my head says probably not.

Jack

 

[Rob]

Rob,

I think I prefer to be decimated than bombarded by my own artillery. Not heard of that before and sounds like a pretty pointless waste of men and shells.

Brett

Brett, I may have read it in Alistair Horne's excellent 'The Price Of Glory' , but I may be wrong there.

Rob

I agree with what you say about the myths that have grown up around Haig. I think it was Churchill (or possibly John Terraine? I am away from my library at present)who said that Haig was not equal to the prodigious events he participated in but just as surely, who actually was? Monash is often named as someone who might have done better (mainly by Australians which is a shocker) but he was certainly very good, but could one man have made a difference? Was the right answer there for the taking and an entire leadership caste remained unable or unwilling to see it? Haig's view was that the victories of 1918 could not have occured without the slogging matches of 1916 and 1917, but this is exactly where I am most critical of him. He pursued the latter attacks on the Somme and at Ypres in 1917 when it was clear that the chance for a breakthrough had passed. He needed to be stubborn - there could have been no victory without that quality - but when men are drowning in mud you cannot continue to order an advance. He did not know when to cut his losses.

Could success on Gallipoli have made a difference? My heart says yes but my head says probably not.

Jack

Absolutely Jack. Many stuck the knife into Haig from Lloyd George (the two didn't got on of course) to Alan Clark and of course Blackadder. Yes I think the thing hardest to forgive Haig is Passchendaele, as you say the lessons from the Somme were not learned (or not quick enough anyway) and repeated in deeper mud and worse weather. Rather than the quick dash through the enemy the line approach it would be Plumer's slower but more effective bite and hold tactics that was the way forward. It's a shame because the blood letting of the Somme and Passchendaele have overshadowed Haig's leadership of the British and Commonwealth army success in the later actions that drove the Germans back and ended in victory.

As for Gallipoli I also think you are right, it was such a terrible, heartbreaking waste of human life in terrible conditions that you want to imagine had it succeeded it would have changed the War, but it's doubtful.

One thing for sure, the Brits totally underestimated and dismissed the fighting ability and threat the Turks posed, big mistake.

Rob

 

[Scott]

[h=1]Mud, Blood and Poppycock: This Will Overturn Everything You Thought You Knew about Britain and The First World War[/h] [URL="http://www.amazon.com/Gordon-Corrigan/e/B001HPLB9G/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1"]Gordon Corrigan

http://www.amazon.com/Mud-Blood-Poppycock-Everything-Paperbacks/dp/0304366595[/URL]

 

[Rob]

[h=1]Mud, Blood and Poppycock: This Will Overturn Everything You Thought You Knew about Britain and The First World War[/h] [URL="http://www.amazon.com/Gordon-Corrigan/e/B001HPLB9G/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1"]Gordon Corrigan

http://www.amazon.com/Mud-Blood-Poppycock-Everything-Paperbacks/dp/0304366595[/URL]

Thanks Scott, this might be an interesting read, would be good to read another non traditional view of the conflict.

Rob

 

[lancer]

Actually Poppo I'm not sure about decimation as in the way you describe it (ala Roman army style) but there is a belief that when certain French units either mutinied or refused to go forward at Verdun they were withdrawn from the battle for a while and then marched to a certain area on the front and then destroyed by their own artillery. Now I've no idea if this actually happened or not but do remember reading about it somewhere, perhaps Al can enlighten us on this?

Rob

Hi Rob. The question of French discipline in regards to executions is shrouded in mystery and unlikely to ever really come to light. In regards to the French army mutinies of 1917, the official figures for executions used to restore order is remarkably low, something like 2-4 dozen. Actual figures were probably much higher as court martials, in many cases, were quick, ad hoc, and brutal. Discipline had to be restored quickly. The story about units being deliberately destroyed by their own artillery are just that, stories. No evidence that it ever took place. The French simply couldn't afford to kill their own men like that as their war casualties were so severe. That story might possibly be an offshoot of the very real problem that the French had with friendly fire. By one estimate, friendly French artillery fire was responsible for the deaths of 75,000 French soldiers during the war. An astounding figure that might have morphed into the story of deliberate punishment. -- Al

 

[Poppo]

But the thing is military tactics that have been used for decades are unlikely to change overnight unless a huge disaster unfolds before the eyes. Such was the battle of the Somme, tactic evolution sped up after that and a great example was the German use of shock troops during their spring offensive. I'm not defending all generals here but just putting another view, this is a very interesting subject that has been debated for nearly a hundred years and will continue.

Also the idea that generals were all hated by the men is another total myth (somewhat perpetuated by 'Blackadder ' ) Haig in particular was loved very much by his men witnessed by the thousands of them that thronged his funeral. He spent his life after the war raising money for his wounded comrades and their families etc. (in fact even when I was at primary school the Poppy fund was still called the Haig fund)

Finally another myth to destroy was the fact that the soldiers thought they were 'Cannon fodder'. The superb WW1 Author Lyn McDonald once told me that the men she had interviewed over all those years found this suggestion a total insult. These guys didn't sign up in their millions because they wanted to die, they went into it believing they were fighting for their freedom and their country.They were not helpless sheep to the slaughter, they were off to beat the Hun and Kick the Kaiser as it were.

Rob

Right. That' s why I meant the french and the italian armies, not the british one.Over there the situation was different.

But, in the French and italian armies soldiers weren' t volunteers at all. The service was compulsory and they were sentenced to death if refused to serve or desert. People were ignorant during those times, poor peasants were sent in the trenches without knowing why they were fighting.So,their generals and officiers were usually hated by their men as they were distant and had an arrogant attitude at them.Officiers came from the middle classes and treated badly the masses of ignorant soldiers who hated them more and more, finding nonsense to be taken from their work in the fields and be sent to be killed for no reason.
In the italian army soldiers were sent to be butchered in several unuseful attacks with a line of "carabinieri"( military police) advancing right behind them, ready to shoot anyone who tried to retreat....And yes, it happened that retreating soldiers were bombed or shot by their own lines when retreating...

 

[damian]

World War One remains an epic failure if European statesmanship and politics. It was a disaster got Europe and hence the whole world and most of our current troubles stem from the fact that so many empires that were on their own way progressive collapsed. These were replaced by communist and nationalist movements which have only resulted in ongoing conflict. The European statesmen should never have allowed such a futile war to drag on so long

 

[Scott]

The film Paths of Glory has an incident of a local commander firming on his own lines. Perhaps this was inspired by real or rumored incidents.
Good movie BTW, you really hate humanity (thought Col. Dax) up until the last minutes of the film.

 

[Rob]

The film Paths of Glory has an incident of a local commander firming on his own lines. Perhaps this was inspired by real or rumored incidents.
Good movie BTW, you really hate humanity (thought Col. Dax) up until the last minutes of the film.

Very good movie Scott, Kirk Douglas if memory serves?

Rob

 

[jazzeum]

Douglas, directed by Stanley Kubrick. In my opinion, one of the greatest movies ever made. The movie was banned in France for a number of years.

 

[jazzeum]

World War One remains an epic failure if European statesmanship and politics. It was a disaster got Europe and hence the whole world and most of our current troubles stem from the fact that so many empires that were on their own way progressive collapsed. These were replaced by communist and nationalist movements which have only resulted in ongoing conflict. The European statesmen should never have allowed such a futile war to drag on so long

I believe there are no right and no wrong answers. Many of the politicians were not very good. One of the Kaiser's advisors said of him "woe to the country that has a boy for a king." Edward Gray was not completely open with the cabinet about how close the French and British military were becoming. This only scratches the surface.

The great powers distrusted each other and felt anxious about their position.

Austria-Hungary was an empire that made no sense; it would have shattered eventually. The Ottoman Empire was ripe for the falling and the Russian Empire, despite some economic successes, was on the verge of revolution. The government thought that they could keep the lid on with a war.

The great powers almost went to war during the Balkan Wars. If it hadn't been for the assassination, it would have been something else.

 

[lancer]

Douglas, directed by Stanley Kubrick. In my opinion, one of the greatest movies ever made. The movie was banned in France for a number of years.

The movie is based on the novel of the same name, written by Humphrey Cobb. Cobb based his novel on a true incident from 1915 in which a company of the 336th IR refused to advance. 6 corporals and 18 soldiers were tried for refusing to advance in the face of the enemy and 4 of the corporals were sentenced to death and executed. This is the same attack where French artillery was ordered to fire on there own trenches in an attempt to drive the soldiers out and into the attack. The artillery refused the order without proof in writing. This particular incident was so egregious that the relatives of the executed soldiers carried on a campaign for years after the war to have the soldiers reputations and records restored. According to different records, France carried out some 550-600 military executions during the war, although the actual number is likely quite a bit higher due to ad-hoc courts and executions carried out during the desperate early war days in 1914 and the equally desperate days of the April-May 1917 mutinies. -- Al