The Generals of World War One

[Guest tomacina]

Hi guys, I'm doing a research project for my university dissertation on the first world war generals and would very much like your help.

Do you think that the generals of WW1 were indeed the incompetent butchers as portrayed in such tv series like Blackadder or were they simply misunderstood? Was it just the case that technology and tactics at the time simply were not developed enough to deal with the new industrial war?

Did the Generals learn from their mistakes?

[PhilB]

Tomacina, this subject has been discussed a number of times. Opinions are, shall we say, mixed! If you put "donkeys" in the search, you`ll get a number of threads which may be of interest. Phil B

[Andrew Hesketh]

Or (for the sake of balance) try 'Lions'. (!)

[truthergw]

Lots and lots of interesting stuff on this topic but perhaps you should dress in flameproof overalls before you start the search.

[Borden Battery]

If you search elsewhere you will find a list of some 1300 generals that I posted - this will give you both a listing of names from which to research and some numbers to play with. I believe Bourne is doing some detailed research on the generals as well. Do a discussion forum search for him.

As with any population statistic you will find individuals on either side of the mean - perhaps skewed more to the negative side for the first two-thirds of the war. For the final one-third of the war I believe there was a greater understanding of the weaponry, logistics, combined operations, assault groups and husbanding of human resources. Naturally, there are individuals of greater ignorance and/or compentance which will move outwards by standard deviations. Of course, the negative standard deviation individuals [aka "The Donkeys"] are the ones who seem to garner the most interest. Unfortunately, the brilliant and caring generals [aka "The Lion-Leaders"] seem to be over-looked.

In my area of research [Canadian Machine Gun Corps] it is my current opinion that there was a great deal of positive innovation, testing and thoughtfulness of the plight of the ORs. In part, this may have been the result of a lot of former engineers and bankers in the ranks and far fewer pre-war military professionals. Of course, there was more time and cost associated with training "Emma Gees" and this may also have lead to a greater care not to sqaunder this resource.

I have also come across some recent material on innovations by the French from Verdun onwards.

Try to avoid accepting generalizations and look at the individuals, their situation, the options available and did they THEN make an informed decision.

Borden Battery

[PhilB]

But bear in mind the advice of St Michael (Ch 7, Verse 20):-

"Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them"

Phil B

[armourersergeant]

More lion than donkey IMO.

The Greatest most hard fought innovative, non communication led war fought by commanders from visual distance of battlefeild. Hardly a good basis to fight a new style of war to that you had been trained for!

I wouldn't go as far as to say misunderstood but certainly misjudged by History on the whole.

Is you dissatation going to be in general to command and control or pulling on specific Commanders to compare?

regards

Arm

[stevenbecker]

Mate,

Generals like soldiers are a mixed lot and as many Donkeys you find there are the same amount of Lions.

We (aussies) tentened to lay the blame for all our dead on the shoulders of a number of British Generals but on closer examination many of our worst deaths came from our own generals (McKay at Fromelles).

Its easy to lay the blame for our losses on men like Churchill (Gallipoli) and Haig (Western Front) but we should lay that blame a lot lower down.

These lower Generals had more to do with how the men and units were deployed and as such could have more influence on the general operations being undertaken. And as such there use of tactics can be an example to others.

But I am sorry to say many of these generals took there time to lean there trade and to reach a postion to do any good. Such was the nature of the war they were fighting.

Cheers

S.B

[Guest Benoit Douville]

I agree with Borden Battery, do your research about the Generals of World War I and make your own conclusion and don't forget to comeback here and say what do you think.

Regards

[Robert Dunlop]

Tomacina, welcome to the Forum. As mentioned, you will find lots of opinions on the subject of the competence, or otherwise, of British generals in the First World War. This may be what you are after - opinions that is. I guess it depends on what the purpose of the dissertation is.

Here are a few thoughts to consider. You should check out how the technologies evolved during the war, particularly the numbers and varieties of artillery, the use of aircraft, mortars and tanks, etc. We could supply you with some sources that would give you overviews. Then correlate this with the casualty rates from different major battles at different phases of the war. You may find it helpful to cross-check the casualty rates with those of the American Civil War and some of the major battles in the Second World War. There are some historians who have made these comparisons. Check out some descriptions of early battles, such as the Battle of Mons or Le Cateau, with the Battle of Amiens in August 1918. See if the tactics are the same. Were there any major differences between the casualty rates of the British, French and Germans?

As a parallel piece of work, check out the total numbers of casualties for the major campaigns in which British soldiers had been involved in the previous hundred years - Waterloo, the Crimea, the Sudan, and the wars in South Africa are some examples. What, if any differences, are there between these wars and the First World War, from the British perspective?

There is a dimension to this question that is very important - the linkage between the politicians and the military, particularly in a democracy. The former set the context for the war; the latter wage it. The former must maintain the support of the public, or at least not incur the public's wrath - ie they need to hang on to their political careers. Do some reading around Lloyd George as an example.

Finally, consider the overall prosecution of the American Civil War, the First and the Second World Wars. All three illustrate the issues of total war between large populations with significant industrial capacity.

Just a few thoughts.

Robert

[Guest Evans of the Broke]

You should consider the poster on here. He also submitted an article by armourersergeant

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php...1370&highlight=

[6th Shropshires]

Borden Battery could not have put it better.

Just to add my 1p worth, there were bad generals but you'll find as the war proceeded they were weeded out, General French was not up to the job as C. in C. and was replaced. Those generals who had made mistakes did learn from them. I have read several war diaries at Divisional level, the Gernals tend to finish there reports with so-and-so could been done different and suggest how such and such could be done to improve so-and-so. What I am trying to say is that they were self criticial and made suggestions to put mistakes right.

Hopefully one day someone will produce a balanced report on every General, well all these above Divisional command at any rate, from all countries who took part. A lot of hard work but its needed because many people do not have a clue about the subject.

Annette

[PhilB]

I have read several war diaries at Divisional level, the Gernals tend to finish there reports with so-and-so could been done different and suggest how such and such could be done to improve so-and-so. What I am trying to say is that they were self criticial and made suggestions to put mistakes right.

You may be right, Annette, but there are a couple of things that would militate against self criticism. Firstly, the natural tendency for a general not to want to admit personal failings. Secondly, the knowledge that self criticism may be seen as admission of failure by the CinC and make dismissal more likely and promotion less likely. Are you sure you read about self criticism and not criticism of the actions of those below? Phil B

[T8HANTS]

Hi

The personalities of the Generals and the problems they faced or created has been well covered above, but consider looking from where these men came historically.

I think you must also look at the status of the Royal Navy with regard to possible European theaters of conflict, before the war. Also how the defence budget was allotted, and the history of land warfare that the British Army had been involved with prior to 1914. It was an army that faced tribesmen, (Boers excepted), not industrial powers.

To give you a modern example, an army that was concentrating on peace keeping in Northern Ireland, and consuming part of its budget in the process, may not be fully up to speed on the latest high tech' developments, amongst the bigger players of the world. It could find it has logistical, or even man power problems, if a larger conflict is encountered.

When dealing with war mistakes and learning curves will cost lives, above all try and look at things with eyes of 1914, not 2006, because anything else is unfair.

Gareth

[Kate Wills]

Hi guys, I'm doing a research project for my university dissertation on the first world war generals and would very much like your help...

Are you confining your research to British generals, or looking at the High Command of the major combattant nations? You have to take the multi-national aspect into account, such as the difficulties of French + British, German + Turkish co-operation etc.

No nation fought in complete isolation, so we need to consider generalship, and the make-up, performance etc of all the particpant armies, and opposing forces. Generals were also subject to political pressure, and the expectations from the media and public, so there is a rather more to this than bare figures that indicate failure or success in battle.

[6th Shropshires]

Hi Phil

I think the good ones were self criticial, those that did not assess their own actions were the bad generals. To be the best at what your doing what ever that is you have to be self criticial. Like I say there were bad ones but these were removed as time showed up there weak points and likewise those that know what they were doing soon went up the leader.

Like I seid I look forward to a balanced report/book, which just looks at each general in black and white terms.

Annette

[Muerrisch]

It needs to be borne in mind what Generals are for: they are to win wars with the means available.

[Terry_Reeves]

Agree with the above comment. The issue of WW1 Generals and generalship is almost always clouded, and governed by, the narrow view of casualty statistics. Whilst they need some explanation, those particular chains need to be thrown off for a considered view.

Terry Reeves

[Bob Bedward]

It seems to me that Harris of Bomber Command WW2 was faced with very similar problems as those faced by Haig. both believed that their approach was right given the strategic and technical problems they both faced.

I would suggest that both faced with these issue did the best they could, and got better at doing it.

The other issue is, they both suffered the politicians unfairness once it was all over.

Ask yourself what else could have been done given the circumstances.

Best of luck with the research.

Old Jack

[Staffsyeoman]

Reminds me of that old Monty Python adage from the 'Professor of Logic' on the "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" soundtrack:

"Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted: 'All wood burns, concludes Sir Bedevere, therefore all that burns is wood'. This is, of course, pure bull...."

They were, after all, human beings too not immune to the viccisitudes of interaction; were they at Staff College together? Did one senior look down on a subordinate's former regiment? Schools? Research I did (and still have fallow) shows that a lot of this still hung over in WW2; e.g. if you'd come up through the Indian Army and got command in the British Army, you were generally held with some reserve (Auchinleck, anyone) and so on.

Trouble is, such personal factors can be a devil to nail down after all these years - but they can't be overlooked completely. "Great War Generals of the Western Front" by Neillands and "Bloody Red Tabs" are a good start, as is "Leadership in Battle 1914-18" (err...the latter I think by Smyth, lost my copy in a flood at uni 23 years ago..) But seriously, good luck!