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

[Jack]

Excellent post my friend:salute:: I once sat on a flight back from Florida next to a conspiracy theorist, did you know Jesus did not die but played for Led Zepp at Live Aid?!If I'd let him he'd have me believe I'd never been to Disneyland at all but it was all a hoax by the Russian's!

There are some superb WW1 poems no doubt about it, but it's wrong to think they had universal appeal at the time and were the voice of all the PBI's.

As always good to chat with you mate
Rob

Careful - people will suspect we are the same person!

 

[Jack]

Just sticking my nose in, but I am also partial to Owen. Also like Isaac Rosenberg. He seems to have a feel for the common man's concerns. His poem 'The Immortals' is the type of thing any soldier would be concerned with, not causes or effects, or politics, just concerns on an everyday level. "Dead Man's Dump' is another one that is good but is entirely more depressing. Generally I am not a fan of poetry and it has been years since I really have read this stuff but those two men's work just kind of stuck with me because they were there, in it, not writing after the fact, and because they both died there. -- Al

Al

I love Owen's poetry. I used to teach with younger colleagues who would smother their poetry units with the lyrics of the latest piece of musical trash floating around. I would be next door reading Owen, Rosenberg and Sassoon. For a change I would move away from war poetry and read some Wordsworth or Tennyson . If they asked for music, they got Simon and Garfunkel. Culture is not always what you want but it is always what you need.

Jack

 

[Jack]

Jack,

I am not that accomplished when it comes to poetry but I think Wilfred Owen has two that are classic, Dulce et Decorum Est and Anthum for Doomed Youth. I came across one by Yeats recently that was moving, An Irish Airman Foresees His Death.

As far as literature Parade's End is a great book and a favorite. Who cannot sympathize with Teitjens?

As poetry is a subjective thing, I think what you like or find moving is influenced by your experiences; I came of age during the late 60s.

Brad

Brad

Two great poems. An Irish Airman Forsees His Death is a classic (it was used in the movie Memphis Belle from memory). Three from three! Well done.

Jack

 

[DMNamiot]

Hi Folks,

I wanted to say my piece before we drift too far in discussing the poetry of Owen and others from that era.

Robs post and Jacks recent post are spot on in my view.

But now here is what I think of the topic:Revisionist plain and simple.

That's my summary of this tendency to apply a modern look at past events such as WWI, or the American Army subduing the Plains Indians, The colonization of South America by Spain, etc etc etc. We (modern people) tend to look at these past events in an improper mind set. We try to apply our current morays and ethics to these events and their commanders and to put it plainly this just wont work. I know everyone has opinions on the subject at hand and many of them are valid but to classify the commanders et al as murders is really too much. One of the other folks in this thread touched upon the notion of industrialized war. WWI was the first one where modern (for the time) industrialized nations took to the field to fight each other. Prior to this event the wars fought since the Franco Prussian War were mainly against what many referred too as savages or tribes on colonial frontiers, such as the Nile River War against the Mahdi's Forces in Sudan and many other fights that took place in the Northwest Frontier and the Philippines and other areas. So the quick firing Artillery and machine guns were tested against the enemies of which ever King or Queen or President you served but they had not been pitted against the forces of those Kings and Queens and Presidents (yet). This is excluding the Sino- Russian War

In order to illustrate this as a modern military man I learned a great deal about my trade through training exercises and the after action reviews that would follow. As you can guess this was not always a pleasant experience but it was educational and we(as an Army) learned a great deal from our mistakes. The Armies of Victoria and the Kaiser etc didn't really have this sort of tool in place, they tended to view the results of the campaign and would if needed make adjustments to their tactics. This lead to complacency with regard to developing tactics and techniques to counter modern machineguns and artillery because the tactics worked in India or Africa why shouldn't they work in France?

So yes the slaughter on the Western Front was unbelievable and we wonder at the massive casualties because as modern people we have become accustomed to winning quickly and with really low casualty rates, again due to modernization of weapons and also importantly the tactics techniques and procedures trained into the heads of our Active Forces. Imagine if you will what the headlines on Fox or CNN or BBC would be if we launched an amphibious assault today and took the casualties that occurred in the opening hours of the Normandy Invasion or the opening moves against semi dug in German forces in the little town of Vauquois France which sits atop of a strategic hill that over looks the lines of communication and supply for Verdun. There would be people howling for blood... But we cant look a these events in the same light as we would today the times were different and the people and their beliefs were as well.

Did the commanders feel anything about their troops? I maintain they did and many were seeking any method to try and change what was happening in France so they could bring mobility back to the field and break the will of the enemy and conclude the war. These generals weren't the murdering monsters some would maintain they were field commanders who were asked to wage a new and different type of warfare against modern armies who were also trying to wage the same type of war.

Dave

 

[Mitch]

I have stated such in many of the discussions about murder and certain generals Montgomery, Haig et al that have been discussed. Taking a certain section or act out of the whole political, socio- economic and military doctrine of the day distorts everything there after
Mitch

Hi Folks,

I wanted to say my piece before we drift too far in discussing the poetry of Owen and others from that era.

Robs post and Jacks recent post are spot on in my view.

But now here is what I think of the topic:Revisionist plain and simple.

That's my summary of this tendency to apply a modern look at past events such as WWI, or the American Army subduing the Plains Indians, The colonization of South America by Spain, etc etc etc. We (modern people) tend to look at these past events in an improper mind set. We try to apply our current morays and ethics to these events and their commanders and to put it plainly this just wont work. I know everyone has opinions on the subject at hand and many of them are valid but to classify the commanders et al as murders is really too much. One of the other folks in this thread touched upon the notion of industrialized war. WWI was the first one where modern (for the time) industrialized nations took to the field to fight each other. Prior to this event the wars fought since the Franco Prussian War were mainly against what many referred too as savages or tribes on colonial frontiers, such as the Nile River War against the Mahdi's Forces in Sudan and many other fights that took place in the Northwest Frontier and the Philippines and other areas. So the quick firing Artillery and machine guns were tested against the enemies of which ever King or Queen or President you served but they had not been pitted against the forces of those Kings and Queens and Presidents (yet). This is excluding the Sino- Russian War

In order to illustrate this as a modern military man I learned a great deal about my trade through training exercises and the after action reviews that would follow. As you can guess this was not always a pleasant experience but it was educational and we(as an Army) learned a great deal from our mistakes. The Armies of Victoria and the Kaiser etc didn't really have this sort of tool in place, they tended to view the results of the campaign and would if needed make adjustments to their tactics. This lead to complacency with regard to developing tactics and techniques to counter modern machineguns and artillery because the tactics worked in India or Africa why shouldn't they work in France?

So yes the slaughter on the Western Front was unbelievable and we wonder at the massive casualties because as modern people we have become accustomed to winning quickly and with really low casualty rates, again due to modernization of weapons and also importantly the tactics techniques and procedures trained into the heads of our Active Forces. Imagine if you will what the headlines on Fox or CNN or BBC would be if we launched an amphibious assault today and took the casualties that occurred in the opening hours of the Normandy Invasion or the opening moves against semi dug in German forces in the little town of Vauquois France which sits atop of a strategic hill that over looks the lines of communication and supply for Verdun. There would be people howling for blood... But we cant look a these events in the same light as we would today the times were different and the people and their beliefs were as well.

Did the commanders feel anything about their troops? I maintain they did and many were seeking any method to try and change what was happening in France so they could bring mobility back to the field and break the will of the enemy and conclude the war. These generals weren't the murdering monsters some would maintain they were field commanders who were asked to wage a new and different type of warfare against modern armies who were also trying to wage the same type of war.

Dave

 

[Poppo]

The two aothors you mention are people like you and me. They are one just two takes on an issue. Liddell Hart did not have years of experience in the trenches and Remarque was a novelist who did. Their views are no more, or less, appropriate than anyone else. You are a harsh judge of people called upon to act in events beyond an historian's ability to comprehend in full even at a distance of one hundred years. Liddell Hart - who I have also studied in depth - had a reasonable grasp of part of the truth. Remarque was not even conscious that he was writing a book that would be categorised as 'anti war'. Today's view often says more about today than it does about the past. We understand issues based on who we are now. Historical events are reinterpreted by each generation. If they weren't, why would museums have information panels. The 'objects' should speak for themselves.

On the outbreak of World War I in 1914 Liddell Hart volunteered to become an officer in the Kings Own Yorkshire Light Infantry. He fought on the Western Front. Liddell Hart's front line experience was relatively brief, confined to two short spells in the autumn and winter of 1915, being sent home from the front after suffering concussive injuries from a shell burst. He was promoted to the rank of captain. He returned to the front for a third time in 1916, in time to participate in the Battle of the Somme. He was hit three times without serious injury before being badly gassed and sent out of the line on July 18, 1916.[5] His battalion was nearly wiped out on the first day of the offensive, a part of the 60,000 casualties suffered in the heaviest single day's loss in British history. The experiences he suffered on the Western Front profoundly affected him for the rest of his life.[6] Transferred to be Adjutant to Volunteer units in Stoud and Cambridge, he spent a great deal of time training new units.

....Not so short experience in my opinion......And no, they are are not like you and me, for many reasons.

 

[Poppo]

Hi Folks,

I wanted to say my piece before we drift too far in discussing the poetry of Owen and others from that era.

Robs post and Jacks recent post are spot on in my view.

But now here is what I think of the topic:Revisionist plain and simple.

That's my summary of this tendency to apply a modern look at past events such as WWI, or the American Army subduing the Plains Indians, The colonization of South America by Spain, etc etc etc. We (modern people) tend to look at these past events in an improper mind set. We try to apply our current morays and ethics to these events and their commanders and to put it plainly this just wont work. I know everyone has opinions on the subject at hand and many of them are valid but to classify the commanders et al as murders is really too much. One of the other folks in this thread touched upon the notion of industrialized war. WWI was the first one where modern (for the time) industrialized nations took to the field to fight each other. Prior to this event the wars fought since the Franco Prussian War were mainly against what many referred too as savages or tribes on colonial frontiers, such as the Nile River War against the Mahdi's Forces in Sudan and many other fights that took place in the Northwest Frontier and the Philippines and other areas. So the quick firing Artillery and machine guns were tested against the enemies of which ever King or Queen or President you served but they had not been pitted against the forces of those Kings and Queens and Presidents (yet). This is excluding the Sino- Russian War

In order to illustrate this as a modern military man I learned a great deal about my trade through training exercises and the after action reviews that would follow. As you can guess this was not always a pleasant experience but it was educational and we(as an Army) learned a great deal from our mistakes. The Armies of Victoria and the Kaiser etc didn't really have this sort of tool in place, they tended to view the results of the campaign and would if needed make adjustments to their tactics. This lead to complacency with regard to developing tactics and techniques to counter modern machineguns and artillery because the tactics worked in India or Africa why shouldn't they work in France?

So yes the slaughter on the Western Front was unbelievable and we wonder at the massive casualties because as modern people we have become accustomed to winning quickly and with really low casualty rates, again due to modernization of weapons and also importantly the tactics techniques and procedures trained into the heads of our Active Forces. Imagine if you will what the headlines on Fox or CNN or BBC would be if we launched an amphibious assault today and took the casualties that occurred in the opening hours of the Normandy Invasion or the opening moves against semi dug in German forces in the little town of Vauquois France which sits atop of a strategic hill that over looks the lines of communication and supply for Verdun. There would be people howling for blood... But we cant look a these events in the same light as we would today the times were different and the people and their beliefs were as well.

Did the commanders feel anything about their troops? I maintain they did and many were seeking any method to try and change what was happening in France so they could bring mobility back to the field and break the will of the enemy and conclude the war. These generals weren't the murdering monsters some would maintain they were field commanders who were asked to wage a new and different type of warfare against modern armies who were also trying to wage the same type of war.

Dave

I totally agree that we can' t consider historical facts with today' s ethics, today' s sensibilities and today' s points of views, of course. That' s why I mentioned someone' s point of view who lived those facts personally. Moreover, he is one of the greatest historians, searcher, military theorist of all times, and this confirms his scientific analysis....

Jack,
Cosidering Hart or Remarque like novelists or poets, is just ridiculous, they fought and were shocked for the rest of their life by their experiences...And sure, they were also artists or searchers, but not only that.

The " romantic" considerations ( like about Gallipoli disaster), were done in the 20ies, 30ies and Hart rejects this " good taste". On the contrary, his analysis is cold and scientific.

 

[jazzeum]

Historical facts are facts but the events themselves are always being re-interpreted. That is in the nature of things and a good thing too as we should not always rely on one interpretation. Following the end of the War, causation was seen as something to which every party contributed and all were at fault. In the 50s German historians led the way in blaming Germany for the outbreak of the war. This is the current thinking although certain books such as the Sleepwalkers have tried to poke holes in it and blamed Serbia and their masters to a great extent; this is the view to which I subscribe.

A constant re-evaluation of tenets that we hold dear can only advance learning and understanding.

The facts are not always the facts.

 

[Rob]

Hi Folks,

I wanted to say my piece before we drift too far in discussing the poetry of Owen and others from that era.

Robs post and Jacks recent post are spot on in my view.

But now here is what I think of the topic:Revisionist plain and simple.

That's my summary of this tendency to apply a modern look at past events such as WWI, or the American Army subduing the Plains Indians, The colonization of South America by Spain, etc etc etc. We (modern people) tend to look at these past events in an improper mind set. We try to apply our current morays and ethics to these events and their commanders and to put it plainly this just wont work. I know everyone has opinions on the subject at hand and many of them are valid but to classify the commanders et al as murders is really too much. One of the other folks in this thread touched upon the notion of industrialized war. WWI was the first one where modern (for the time) industrialized nations took to the field to fight each other. Prior to this event the wars fought since the Franco Prussian War were mainly against what many referred too as savages or tribes on colonial frontiers, such as the Nile River War against the Mahdi's Forces in Sudan and many other fights that took place in the Northwest Frontier and the Philippines and other areas. So the quick firing Artillery and machine guns were tested against the enemies of which ever King or Queen or President you served but they had not been pitted against the forces of those Kings and Queens and Presidents (yet). This is excluding the Sino- Russian War

In order to illustrate this as a modern military man I learned a great deal about my trade through training exercises and the after action reviews that would follow. As you can guess this was not always a pleasant experience but it was educational and we(as an Army) learned a great deal from our mistakes. The Armies of Victoria and the Kaiser etc didn't really have this sort of tool in place, they tended to view the results of the campaign and would if needed make adjustments to their tactics. This lead to complacency with regard to developing tactics and techniques to counter modern machineguns and artillery because the tactics worked in India or Africa why shouldn't they work in France?

So yes the slaughter on the Western Front was unbelievable and we wonder at the massive casualties because as modern people we have become accustomed to winning quickly and with really low casualty rates, again due to modernization of weapons and also importantly the tactics techniques and procedures trained into the heads of our Active Forces. Imagine if you will what the headlines on Fox or CNN or BBC would be if we launched an amphibious assault today and took the casualties that occurred in the opening hours of the Normandy Invasion or the opening moves against semi dug in German forces in the little town of Vauquois France which sits atop of a strategic hill that over looks the lines of communication and supply for Verdun. There would be people howling for blood... But we cant look a these events in the same light as we would today the times were different and the people and their beliefs were as well.

Did the commanders feel anything about their troops? I maintain they did and many were seeking any method to try and change what was happening in France so they could bring mobility back to the field and break the will of the enemy and conclude the war. These generals weren't the murdering monsters some would maintain they were field commanders who were asked to wage a new and different type of warfare against modern armies who were also trying to wage the same type of war.

Dave

Excellent post Dave. I do not think any serious student of this particular conflict believes the commanders actually enjoyed killing or sending their men to their deaths, it simply no longer adds up.

Now we can sit and discuss for ever and a day about Haig (or as Mitch states in WW2 Montgomery) and whether he should have been sacked after the Somme, I think yes he should have because even if you can make an argument for the Somme, making one for Passchendaele and the slaughter repeated there is very hard. However, this does not mean Haig sat there and ushered some Blackadder-esque quote such as 'Let's move my drinks cabinet six inches nearer to Berlin' ,he simply was not that sort of man and cared deeply about his men. Beneath it all these commanders had to have self belief, confidence in beating the enemy and a healthy amount of arrogance to do the job they were asked to do.

One more thing re Blackadder Goes Forth. What is so infuriating is that on the one hand it is a classic, sublimely funny comedy series, with excellent characters and one liners most of the British (and commonwealth:salute: public still quote today. It also featured the last ever scene that was a hugely moving, well meant, well executed, scene as a direct tribute to all those that went over the top which was met with massive respect in this country.....and yet the series as a whole painted the commanders in such a bad light that has colored peoples view of the War. Lots of historians and museums are now (and have been for years) working hard to reverse this and I think things are going back in the other direction at last, poor Colonel Melchett will one day be seen for what he was, ludicrous , funny, absurd.

Rob

 

[Poppo]

Historical facts are facts but the events themselves are always being re-interpreted. That is in the nature of things and a good thing too as we should not always rely on one interpretation. Following the end of the War, causation was seen as something to which every party contributed and all were at fault. In the 50s German historians led the way in blaming Germany for the outbreak of the war. This is the current thinking although certain books such as the Sleepwalkers have tried to poke holes in it and blamed Serbia and their masters to a great extent; this is the view to which I subscribe.

A constant re-evaluation of tenets that we hold dear can only advance learning and understanding.

The facts are not always the facts.

You are changing subject......Of course the ww1 causes are a topic leading to different interpretations, the political responsabilities of nations.
But the repeted decision of attacks with no chance of success in front of impregnable trenches are a "crime" as Hart states. And we have several examples of this on many fronts.In this case, a fact is a fact.

 

[Rob]

Historical facts are facts but the events themselves are always being re-interpreted. That is in the nature of things and a good thing too as we should not always rely on one interpretation. Following the end of the War, causation was seen as something to which every party contributed and all were at fault. In the 50s German historians led the way in blaming Germany for the outbreak of the war. This is the current thinking although certain books such as the Sleepwalkers have tried to poke holes in it and blamed Serbia and their masters to a great extent; this is the view to which I subscribe.

A constant re-evaluation of tenets that we hold dear can only advance learning and understanding.

The facts are not always the facts.

Very true indeed and it's through this that all those old myths re WW1 are being debunked and today's children are being given a far more balanced and less bigoted viewpoint, which in turn prepares them much better to pass on the baton of remembrance.

Rob

 

[Poppo]

Very true indeed and it's through this that all those old myths re WW1 are being debunked and today's children are being given a far more balanced and less bigoted viewpoint, which in turn prepares them much better to pass on the baton of remembrance.

Rob

The view that all the nation fought together lead by their infallible generals in the strenght to win the barbarian Goths, children eaters, less bigoted? {sm4} Your view is more like the british ww1 propaganda.

Hopefully, in today' s BBC documentaries and shows the remembrance is more critic...Only on this forum I can read such funny things {sm4}


PS: and the children don't even know that ww1 took place

 

[Rob]

The view that all the nation fought together lead by their infallible generals in the strenght to win the barbarian Goths, children eaters, less bigoted? {sm4} Your view is more like the british ww1 propaganda.

Hopefully, in today' s BBC documentaries and shows the remembrance is more critic...Only on this forum I can read such funny things {sm4}


PS: and the children don't even know that ww1 took place

Well I'm very pleased to hear you can read at all! Because where did anyone say 'infallible' ??? Because.....I'm pretty sure....look closely now.....I think I said Haig should have been sacked after the Somme didn't I ? Right there, where it says Haig should have been sacked after the Somme. Search for 'Somme 'Haig '. 'After ', 'sacked'.

As for children not knowing WW1 took place, can only speak for the thousands of them flooding to the IWM WW1 galleries as we speak and the hundreds of schools that will be invading the museum when the holidays end, unless they cannot read either I'm guessing they know about it!:rolleyes2:

Rob

 

[Fort-Stamford]

As a sidebar thought......

Silent reminder of the cost of war in the 100th anniversary of the Great War; when war is caused by inept or power hungry leaders and politicians, compounded by WMD (e.g. new chemical warfare & rapid fire weaponry).

Cost of WWI:
Military Loss of Life: 8,000,000
Military Wounded & MIA: 37,500,000
Civilian Loss of Life: 12,600,000 (does not include losses from global influenza pandemic; source from a French Army hospital)
Economic Loss: $375 Billion
Physical devastation: 1,875 sq. miles of forests, 8,000 sq. miles of farm land, and 250,000 buildings.

Legacy from WWI:
Fascism, Communism, Pacifism and Nihilism, Anarchism, Fatalism, Escapism or sheer apathy--------> WWII

 

[Rob]

As a sidebar thought......

Silent reminder of the cost of war in the 100th anniversary of the Great War; when war is caused by inept or power hungry leaders and politicians, compounded by WMD (e.g. new chemical warfare & rapid fire weaponry).

Cost of WWI:
Military Loss of Life: 8,000,000
Military Wounded & MIA: 37,500,000
Civilian Loss of Life: 12,600,000 (does not include losses from global influenza pandemic; source from a French Army hospital)
Economic Loss: $375 Billion
Physical devastation: 1,875 sq. miles of forests, 8,000 sq. miles of farm land, and 250,000 buildings.

Legacy from WWI:
Fascism, Communism, Pacifism and Nihilism, Anarchism, Fatalism, Escapism or sheer apathy--------> WWII

Sobering stats indeed.

Rob

 

[BLReed]

As a sidebar thought......
Silent reminder of the cost of war in the 100th anniversary of the Great War; when war is caused by inept or power hungry leaders and politicians, compounded by WMD (e.g. new chemical warfare & rapid fire weaponry).
Cost of WWI:
Military Loss of Life: 8,000,000
Military Wounded & MIA: 37,500,000
Civilian Loss of Life: 12,600,000 (does not include losses from global influenza pandemic; source from a French Army hospital)
Economic Loss: $375 Billion
Physical devastation: 1,875 sq. miles of forests, 8,000 sq. miles of farm land, and 250,000 buildings.
Legacy from WWI:
Fascism, Communism, Pacifism and Nihilism, Anarchism, Fatalism, Escapism or sheer apathy--------> WWII

Nothing new. Still in all an affective means of population control. Abet not very selective.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/11/06/opinion/06atrocities_timeline.html?ref=sunday

 

[jazzeum]

Movements such as Anarchism, Nihilism, Pacifism and Communism preceded WW I; the Russian monarchy almost fell in 1904-1905 and Lenin and company played a part. The desire to reject societal norms, so-called Escapism, has existed for eons, e.g. On Walden Pond

 

[Fort-Stamford]

Movements such as Anarchism, Nihilism, Pacifism and Communism preceded WW I; the Russian monarchy almost fell in 1904-1905 and Lenin and company played a part. The desire to reject societal norms, so-called Escapism, has existed for eons, e.g. On Walden Pond

It is true that Anarchism, Nihilism, and Pacifism have been around for ages, but the impact of WWI, I believe heightened them. As for Communism, it may have existed in the shadows prior to WWI, but the war ignited the Russian Revolution in 1917, and brought this political ideology to the forefront in Eastern Europe and later in Imperial China (re-enforced due in part to a corrupt Nationalist Regime).

 

[jazzeum]

I will sort of give you Communism (but the seeds of Bolshevism and the political leadership was set by 1914) but Anarchism reached its height before WW I, the exception being the anarchist movement in Spain in the 20s and the 30s.

 

[Jack]

I will sort of give you Communism (but the seeds of Bolshevism and the political leadership was set by 1914) but Anarchism reached its height before WW I, the exception being the anarchist movement in Spain in the 20s and the 30s.

Are there rules in an argument about Anarchism? {sm4}