the battle of Verdun.

[armourersergeant]

I know there are some books out there that cover this topic but i wonder if anybody could fill me in (besides the wife) as to the consequences of this battle and who really came out the victor. If it was really intended to grind the french into the ground surely the Germans could not afford the body count of the attrition.

Also does this type of battle not just illustrate, but not necesserily justify, the complications and difficulties of the battles of the Somme and Ypres.

Arm.

[Hedley Malloch]

Falkenhayn was never frank with his own generals about the purposes of Verdun. He told them that it would be the decisive battle in the West leading to a war-winning breakthrough, vast territorial gains, capture of Paris, fall of France. But this seems to have been a piece of 'spin'. In private he saw it as sucking the French into a battle of attrition where France would be bled white.

So why did he say one thing in public when his real motives were rather different? One reason appears to have been is that he knew it would be very bad for his Army's morale and motivation if they realised what was really going on. Everyone will sign up for a war-winning breakthrough; a war of bloody attrition would have far fewer backers amongst his senior managers.

The problems with making 'was it worth it?' judgements about the slaughter in any battle anywhere is that they can only be made after the event - sometimes years later. Nobody knows at the time.

The two greatest geniuses of military strategy who ever lived were General Retrospect and Field-Marshal Itoldyouso

[paul guthrie]

I have serious doubts that their goal was attrition. Hugh Strachan says Falkenhayn does not so state in any war time document but only post war memoirs, something I find quite interesting.

[Hedley Malloch]

Paul: that's the point. If attrition was his strategy, then he would be silent on the matter.

My understanding is the Falkenhayn died in 1922 without writing his memoirs or leaving a diary. Horne describes him as the most mysterious and enigmatic senior commander on any side during the war.

[paul guthrie]

Then I should not have said Strachan said it first appeared in memoirs, he did say first mentioned post war. Attrition made no sense for Germany he would have to have believed he would kill many more of them when on the attack, I accept what Strachan says, that was not his goal.

[armourersergeant]

Is it not perhap[s possible that his initial gainwas not attrition but when it got bogged down he 'hinted at the fact that secretly this had been his aim all along.

Change the goal posts to keep the dream alive so to speak.

Arm.

[mmbennett]

Petain was most definately the key in my opinion. He formed the cornerstone of French defensive policy, and became a figure of almost adoration amongst his troops, hence his post-war title of "The Saviour of Verdun". The Germans never did suceed completely in their objectives, and their offensive gradually waned upon the Franco-British attack on the Somme in July, which did succeed in diverting considerable resources from the German war machine (artillery, infantry, machine guns).

If I had to give out the title of "victor", the French would, in my honest view, be the receivers.

Regards,

Matt