Ineptitude and cruelty of ww1 generals and officiers (1 Viewer)

[Poppo]

On the same Kubrick' s "Paths of glory" theme, the beautiful italian film "Uomini contro" ( "Many wars ago" in the english version) with Gian Maria Volonté:

"On the Isonzo front during World War One around 1916-17, Italian army officers demand far too much of their men. Time after time the soldiers are forced to leave their trenches in attempts to storm the enemy positions, always with the same horrific result. The Austro-Hungarian machine guns inevitably mow them down. In one attack a major is killed, and subsequently every sixth man of his platoon is chosen to be executed by a firing squad of his comrades, in some bizarre kind of compensation for the killed officer. And it gets only worse"...

 

[ivanmoe]

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

Irony is a powerful teacher, I suppose. I composed a message to another one of the forums this evening, only to delete it. The subject was Paths of Glory, and how some scenes from the movie would make for great TS subjects. As is almost always the case, my post included images, in this instance of Colonel Dax, the execution parade and the unfaithful who had betrayed France, all taken from the movie. Having completed "the script," I took a moment to ponder my motives. I realized that what I was posting was largely a political statement, rather than legitimate material for anything that anyone would want to display. Moments later, I simply closed the browser window. All that I can say, in conclusion, is that we should tread lightly on these memories. Waste of flesh on this scale by leaders who frequently saw "the grist" as lesser beings than themselves is powerful stuff. I think that we can all agree on that. As to what constitutes "good taste" and what doesn't, frankly my friends, the world is all screwed-up.

-Moe

 

[jazzeum]

On the same Kubrick' s "Paths of glory" theme, the beautiful italian film "Uomini contro" ( "Many wars ago" in the english version) with Gian Maria Volonté:

"On the Isonzo front during World War One around 1916-17, Italian army officers demand far too much of their men. Time after time the soldiers are forced to leave their trenches in attempts to storm the enemy positions, always with the same horrific result. The Austro-Hungarian machine guns inevitably mow them down. In one attack a major is killed, and subsequently every sixth man of his platoon is chosen to be executed by a firing squad of his comrades, in some bizarre kind of compensation for the killed officer. And it gets only worse"...





View attachment 145909

Thanks for the reference. I'm reserving this through Netflix.

Brad

 

[Louis Badolato]

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 agree with Damian. WWI was a pissing match between Queen Victoria's Grandchildren. It appears to me that the French were still pissed off about getting their butts whipped in the Franco-Prussian war, the British and other traditional European imperial powers (France, Belgium) were looking to keep their colonial possessions and the Germans and Italians were looking to grab some for themselves, and everyone was looking to divvy up the Ottoman Empire, and, as always there was ethnic hatred in the Balkins. That being said, no combination of these reasons really explains what happened. To me, it looked like all the political leaders/statesmen/ monarchs in Europe simultaneously decided "we really haven't had a good old fashioned major ground war in Europe since Waterloo" and "my troops will sort out the other side by Christmas" and as a result, an entire generation of young men had to die.

I also tend to think that, contrary to the books written by today's revisionist historians, pretty much all of the Allied Generals in WWI were completely incompetent. The men of my grandparent's generation who fought in WWI certainly spoke of them is homicidal idiots. For example, Blackjack Pershing ordered attacks on the last day of the war, when he knew the war was ending, because he didn't want to cheat any of his young officers from a chance to get into the fray - at the cost of how many young American's lives. And don't even get me started on Douglas Haig. He ordered the attacks on Paschendale so, after the first day, he could declare a victory and have all of the church bells in Britain rung to save his job. He knew very well that he was ordering his men over the top into a hopeless bog, with absolutely no chance of success, but he didn't want to get sacked, so what does 60,000 lives mean when compared to that? His guilty conscience is evidenced by the dedication of the rest of his life to charities for the benefits of his surviving troops. He couldn't and didn't take care of them while they were under his command, so he tried to make up for it afterwards. And the French and Italian generals were even worse. I can think of one Canadian and one Australian general who could have made a difference with modern tactics, but the rest of them should have been convicted of criminally negligent homicide.

 

[Mitch]

There has been numerous threads based on these subjects and we always, or some, come up with the same arguments. Ineptitude, criminal liability etc etc.

Lets take the actions completely out of the context of the period they occurred and forget that the first world war was a technical revolution in terms of warfare and weaponry that was able to be deployed. The simple machine gun and entrenched position was probably the most effective and underestimated advance in military history. We use modern or modern for some, rules of warfare and judge personal on that basis. To do so IMO is itself a form of criminality as we fail to see the entire picture. There were socio economic issues, political issues, class issues and an extremely formal military command structure that all have to be addressed in order to understand what happened on the battlefields in WWI.

All of this was diametrically opposed and somewhat oblivious to the new manner of warfare developing. The fact that new technology was also in its infancy is overlooked. Tanks and air power had not been sufficiently tested to be fully effective or appreciated. A military command structure more used to facing natives with spears were faced with machine guns and howitzers. Mobility in the terrain was also an issue that prevented operations, many that were laid with intelligence, from succeeding.

To call General X, Y or Z a murderer helps nothing and shows a lack of understanding of the events. In terms of Haig the lack of appreciation towards him also shows itself and, thankfully has been reassessed as nonsense. Though entrenched views of him and his actions continue they are ironic as they are exactly the accusation laid at his door, an entrenched mind-set that would not change.

To look back with modern day values and hindsight on military conduct and then pull individual figures out of the overall context they lived and worked and then pull apart their actions cannot ever be a right way to approach history.

In every war one can look back and say that was wrong or this was wrong. thankfully, these revisionist historians who often get a huge amount of criticism have shown, in recent years, a lot of the entrenched views are wrong. This won't change some people's views but, at least the history is becoming balanced with new evidence and often, not even new just records and documents that have been ignored because a historian failed to find it or, worse, did not want their new book or paper ruined from the Blackadder approach to WWI

Without hindsight I wonder what we all would have done differently in that position?? (A rhetorical question)

''War is hell'' so has been said
Mitch

 

[Rob]

'French were still pissed off about getting their butts whipped in the Franco-Prussian war, the British and other traditional European imperial powers (France, Belgium) were looking to keep their colonial possessions and the Germans and Italians were looking to grab some for themselves, and everyone was looking to divvy up the Ottoman Empire, and, as always there was ethnic hatred in the Balkins. That being said, no combination of these reasons really explains what happened. To me, it looked like all the political leaders/statesmen/ monarchs in Europe simultaneously decided "we really haven't had a good old fashioned major ground war in Europe since Waterloo" and "my troops will sort out the other side by Christmas" and as a result, an entire generation of young men had to die'.

Louis, we may not agree re Haig mate but this is spot on. It was about empire building, empire maintaining and empire envy. It could and should have been averted had the right people stood up.

As for Haig, I'm not so naive as to think everybody is good mate but I do not believe Haig or most other generals were willing murderers . Nor do I think Haig raised so much for his men out of guilt. The weight upon this mans shoulders was immense. The French were baying for us to do something to help relieve Verdun and the British government and people of Britain wanted a victory and they wanted it now. What is often overlooked is that Haig (perhaps naturally as a cavalryman)wanted a breakthrough on the German lines where as the French wanted a battle of attrition to draw down and kill as many Germans as possible.

Artillery and the failure of such is key here. The massing of hundreds of guns for the bombardment of German lines in the week leading up to the battle saw artillery fail to a) simply kill enough Germans b) destroy enough wire in front of German lines. On many occasions the mistaken use of high explosive simply hurled the wired high in the air to come straight back down again a few feet from where it was. How much can we blame on Haig for that? Now we could say well why did he not just wait until reports stated wire was all cut? But with advisors telling him it would be ok, France slowly bleeding to death day by day and the British public growing weary of the War that should have ended in their view Christmas 1914, he did not have much wriggle room.

However........

In my view he should have been sidelined after the Somme. Passchendaele was inexcusable and Plumer showed how it should be done with good use of his bite and hold.

We will probably never agree on this Louis, but we should one day have a good chat about it over a few more whiskies my friend as it's always good chatting to you about it:salute::

Cheers
Rob

 

[Rob]

The blame game!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26048324

 

[damian]

When one looks at all the conflicts of the last hundred years so many have their origins in failures stemming from WWi. Ireland, the Middle East, the Balkans, Sout East Asia, communist China, communist Russia the list seems endless. One cannot help but wonder how things would have turned out if some if the old empires had survived to die slowly and gracefully over the century rather than end suddenly. It may seem anachronistic to us but some of these multi cultural diverse empires were the only way to avoid ongoing and perpetual sectarian and nationalistic driven conflict. The Middle East and sfrica and the Balkans are never going to be turn bridge wells or South Bend Dakota much as that would suit our early tweety first century view of the world.

 

[jazzeum]

Thanks for the article Rob. I tend to side with McMeekin who has written some critically acclaimed books that I have on my to read list.

I feel all are responsible for the breakdown in what was called the Concert of Europe. Britain didn't trust Germany because Germany had tried to top them in the naval race and Wilhelm was clumsy in his dealings with England and his uncle Edward; Germany felt it was being isolated and squeezed by the Triple Entente; France was fearful of Germany as their potential forces were inferior to Germany's and Germany was smarting from previous crises with France where France had ignored German rights; Russia feared Austria-Hungary's imperiling its access to the Mediterranean through the Bosphorus Straits and Russia was very unhappy with Austria-Hungary's annexation of Bosnia in 1908, determined that they would never let the Austrians get the better of them again; Austria-Hungary feared the Serbians agitating the Slavic groups in their empire; and the Serbians, being an upstart country, feared the Austrians crushing them.

Could there have been a worse prescription for war. The only surprising is not that it happened but that it didn't happen sooner.

Brad

 

[Rob]

Thanks for the article Rob. I tend to side with McMeekin who has written some critically acclaimed books that I have on my to read list.

I feel all are responsible for the breakdown in what was called the Concert of Europe. Britain didn't trust Germany because Germany had tried to top them in the naval race and Wilhelm was clumsy in his dealings with England and his uncle Edward; Germany felt it was being isolated and squeezed by the Triple Entente; France was fearful of Germany as their potential forces were inferior to Germany's and Germany was smarting from previous crises with France where France had ignored German rights; Russia feared Austria-Hungary's imperiling its access to the Mediterranean through the Bosphorus Straits and Russia was very unhappy with Austria-Hungary's annexation of Bosnia in 1908, determined that they would never let the Austrians get the better of them again; Austria-Hungary feared the Serbians agitating the Slavic groups in their empire; and the Serbians, being an upstart country, feared the Austrians crushing them.

Could there have been a worse prescription for war. The only surprising is not that it happened but that it didn't happen sooner.

Brad

My pleasure Brad, and your post sums it up very nicely indeed. So many different aspects came into play from Britain's worries over German naval expansion to as you state Willhelm's clumsy relations with...well just about everyone! (Brad if you get chance watch this docu two parter; http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01pw5vk)

Rob

 

[Rob]

Returning for a brief moment to WW1 Generals and Haig, link that may be of interest

May be hard to believe now but when Haig died the country was in national mourning something akin to when Diana died.........I kid you not!{eek3}

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zq2y87h

 

[lancer]

The blame game!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26048324

Great article, Rob, and it certainly highlights the difficulty in assigning absolute blame. -- Al

 

[Rob]

Great article, Rob, and it certainly highlights the difficulty in assigning absolute blame. -- Al

It really does Al, few countries involved had ' clean hands ' as it were.

Rob

 

[lancer]

There has been numerous threads based on these subjects and we always, or some, come up with the same arguments. Ineptitude, criminal liability etc etc.

Lets take the actions completely out of the context of the period they occurred and forget that the first world war was a technical revolution in terms of warfare and weaponry that was able to be deployed. The simple machine gun and entrenched position was probably the most effective and underestimated advance in military history. We use modern or modern for some, rules of warfare and judge personal on that basis. To do so IMO is itself a form of criminality as we fail to see the entire picture. There were socio economic issues, political issues, class issues and an extremely formal military command structure that all have to be addressed in order to understand what happened on the battlefields in WWI.

All of this was diametrically opposed and somewhat oblivious to the new manner of warfare developing. The fact that new technology was also in its infancy is overlooked. Tanks and air power had not been sufficiently tested to be fully effective or appreciated. A military command structure more used to facing natives with spears were faced with machine guns and howitzers. Mobility in the terrain was also an issue that prevented operations, many that were laid with intelligence, from succeeding.

To call General X, Y or Z a murderer helps nothing and shows a lack of understanding of the events. In terms of Haig the lack of appreciation towards him also shows itself and, thankfully has been reassessed as nonsense. Though entrenched views of him and his actions continue they are ironic as they are exactly the accusation laid at his door, an entrenched mind-set that would not change.

To look back with modern day values and hindsight on military conduct and then pull individual figures out of the overall context they lived and worked and then pull apart their actions cannot ever be a right way to approach history.

In every war one can look back and say that was wrong or this was wrong. thankfully, these revisionist historians who often get a huge amount of criticism have shown, in recent years, a lot of the entrenched views are wrong. This won't change some people's views but, at least the history is becoming balanced with new evidence and often, not even new just records and documents that have been ignored because a historian failed to find it or, worse, did not want their new book or paper ruined from the Blackadder approach to WWI

Without hindsight I wonder what we all would have done differently in that position?? (A rhetorical question)

''War is hell'' so has been said
Mitch

I think this a very insightful post. The crux of the argument is spot on. Weapons simply outstripped the tactics of the time and it was a long learning curve involved in developing the appropriate ones. It is a fact that the machine gun, coupled with humble barbed wire, were responsible for the deadlock, until sufficient artillery was available, coupled with new infantry tactics, and other weapons like the tank, were available to overcome the power of defensive firepower at specific points.
Years of military history writing, in regards to the slaughter caused by incompetent generals, has so colored our current views that anyone who presents the argument that there were logical reasons for what happened, and the way it happened, is labeled as an apologist or worse. No one wanted to kill millions of men in futile attacks. Haig is labeled, along with many other generals, such as Joffre, as nothing more than dull-witted butchers. If so, why were both men so venerated by their respective publics? Haig was widely loved and respected by his men, as was Joffre. Joffre even had twin-billing as France's big hero at the post-war victory parade, despite being replaced as C in C in 1916. It is essential to accurate history to put men and events in the proper perspective of when they existed, simple time and place. To label events and men from the safety of hindsight, without considering all aspects, is inadequate and bad history. -- Al

 

[Mitch]

Al..

Thanks. I think your post sums it up very well but, its more headline grabbing to jump in with ''murderer'' than a reasoned argument looking at the whole picture.

Only four more years to go before we start looking at the origins of WWII
Mitch

I think this a very insightful post. The crux of the argument is spot on. Weapons simply outstripped the tactics of the time and it was a long learning curve involved in developing the appropriate ones. It is a fact that the machine gun, coupled with humble barbed wire, were responsible for the deadlock, until sufficient artillery was available, coupled with new infantry tactics, and other weapons like the tank, were available to overcome the power of defensive firepower at specific points.
Years of military history writing, in regards to the slaughter caused by incompetent generals, has so colored our current views that anyone who presents the argument that there were logical reasons for what happened, and the way it happened, is labeled as an apologist or worse. No one wanted to kill millions of men in futile attacks. Haig is labeled, along with many other generals, such as Joffre, as nothing more than dull-witted butchers. If so, why were both men so venerated by their respective publics? Haig was widely loved and respected by his men, as was Joffre. Joffre even had twin-billing as France's big hero at the post-war victory parade, despite being replaced as C in C in 1916. It is essential to accurate history to put men and events in the proper perspective of when they existed, simple time and place. To label events and men from the safety of hindsight, without considering all aspects, is inadequate and bad history. -- Al

 

[damian]

Al..

Thanks. I think your post sums it up very well but, its more headline grabbing to jump in with ''murderer'' than a reasoned argument looking at the whole picture.

Only four more years to go before we start looking at the origins of WWII
Mitch

It was not really the generals who failed it was the politicians and statesmen who let the slaughter continue till everything about old Europe was gone

 

[Scott]

It was not really the generals who failed it was the politicians and statesmen who let the slaughter continue till everything about old Europe was gone

Except for Britain, France, and the US (correct me if I missed anyone) the leadership of most of the participants were autocracies with some parliamentary bodies. Does anyone miss the empires that fell?

 

[damian]

Except for Britain, France, and the US (correct me if I missed anyone) the leadership of most of the participants were autocracies with some parliamentary bodies. Does anyone miss the empires that fell?

The austro Hungarisn empire was actually quite benign and tolerant what we see in the Balkans today is hatred and sectarianism So I think the old empire was better than what came after. As for the old Ottoman Empire I doubt if the current morass is better than life under the ottamans

 

[Poppo]

Except for Britain, France, and the US (correct me if I missed anyone) the leadership of most of the participants were autocracies with some parliamentary bodies. Does anyone miss the empires that fell?

Scott...

At that time we can say that also Britain, France, and in some measure also the US were not the democracies we know today: even if they had the free vote, the leaders of those democracies were not very democratic! They had several colonies, had no respect at all for the self-determination of countries outside Europe nor the US, racism and so on. They were ready to jump on each other for any economical interest, their armies marched in Africa, Asia and so on. So the attitude of France or Britain was not so far from the attitude of Germany or Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. And let' s remember that France started the previous war against Prussia in 1870 for very futile diplomatic reasons.

And well, considered that after the Kaiser came Hitler and after The zar came Stalin, well, I miss the empires {sm4}

 

[Rob]

Scott...

At that time we can say that also Britain, France, and in some measure also the US were not the democracies we know today: even if they had the free vote, the leaders of those democracies were not very democratic! They had several colonies, had no respect at all for the self-determination of countries outside Europe nor the US, racism and so on. They were ready to jump on each other for any economical interest, their armies marched in Africa, Asia and so on. So the attitude of France or Britain was not so far from the attitude of Germany or Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. And let' s remember that France started the previous war against Prussia in 1870 for very futile diplomatic reasons.

And well, considered that after the Kaiser came Hitler and after The zar came Stalin, well, I miss the empires {sm4}

Guys, I know there are some on here who don't like the Brits because of all the history/ empire/American War of independence, but I'm sorry but if it were a choice between the loathsome, hideous Nazi regime and our Empire I'd be sticking the Union Jack right up Adolf's arse. I detest everything they stood for. Yes I know this country was involved in the slave trade and did terrible things in some parts of the world, but I still think this world would be darker without the Brits and under the pleasure of Adolf and co. There are few days that go by when I don't silently thank those men of the RAF (From Britain and around the world) who climbed into those Spitfires and Hurricanes and stopped them putting one single hate filled jackboot on this green and pleasant land:salute::

Rob