4 ms·

That's a bit of a stereotypical view not backed up by history. Generals didn't really "live in splendor". Generals visited the front line every day and were if

That's a bit of a stereotypical view not backed up by history. Generals didn't really "live in splendor". Generals visited the front line every day and were if anything more involved in the business end of the war than generals today would be. Many of them (more than 200 British generals) were killed or captured in action! More generally, the officer class had a higher casualty rate than the troops, at least in the British army. On top of that, they strategised a whole new type of industrial war for which they hadn't been trained or prepared, and they weren't any more or less enthusiastic about the war then the troops they led or the society they came from. And it is particularly odd thing to say if you consider it from the perspective of, say, French generals. Their country was being invaded by a militaristic neighbour, but according to your formulation generals are callously squandering men and material for a pointless cause - except from the point of view of the people involved it was anything but pointless, the future of their country was at stake.

maxxxxx 8y ago
Read a little about history of WW1. Especially the French generals ignored new developments in warfare like camouflage clothing or steel helmets. They sent probably hundreds of thousands of soldiers into death out of sheer arrogance. And yes, they lived in splendor. They liked to set up their headquarters in castles and other luxury properties. They didn't live in trenches or underground while artillery was falling on them. They ate well while their infantry almost starved and had no water. I am German and I am aware of the crimes the Germans committed during WW1 and WW2. I just object to the tendency of making generals virtuous heroes while nobody talks about the foot soldiers. The German generals were callous assholes and so were most of the other generals.
- Svip 8y ago
  You say that as if generals decides war all on their own. Generals generally don't decide when to go to war, civilian leadership usually does. While the Military School thinking prevailing at the time definitely did not consider the lessons learnt from the American Civil War relevant, this was also a political issue. While generals still thought of war as a series of set piece battles, politicians also thought of it this way, feeling it unnecessary to provide their armies with 'unnecessary equipment' like camouflage. A lot of generals during WW1 thought in the Franco-Prussian War, so most of them had been foot soldiers themselves in the past. They knew the horror, but they didn't understand the effectiveness of the machine guns. Well, until, essentially, it was too late. Are they innocent? No. Did they send hundreds of thousands into their death out of arrogance? Probably more out of ignorance and political pressure. If you look at the deadliest battles of WW1, they come later in the war. And they come after politicians demand action, rather than just entrenched warfare. All I am saying; don't let politicians off the hook. They likely share more of the blame than the generals.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    Top generals are politicians.
- deeg 8y ago
  I hear what you're saying but the problem is that, when retelling the history of a large battle, no foot soldier plays a large enough part to give the reader a good sense of the overall event. An author can try to incorporate the grunts but they run the risk of overwhelming the reader with names that need to be kept track of. The stories of the foot soldier can be told but they are usually closer to a biography rather than over-arching history. Author Stephen Ambrose was one of the best at it. His books "Citizen Soldier" and "Band of Brothers" (among others) are excellent.
- baud147258 8y ago
  > French generals ignored new developments in warfare like camouflage clothing or steel helmets For the helmet, it didn't last long, since the Adrian helmet was introduced in 1915 [0]. And at the start of the war, I don't think any army had standard issue steel helmets. For the clothing, the standard issue also switched to the navy blue in 1915. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_helmet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_helmet
baud147258 8y ago
Considering the number of French generals who were sacked in 1914 after the start of the war [0] (one third of them), there was still a skill problem. [0]https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limogeage#Liste_de_généraux_limogés_en_1914 https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limogeage#Liste_de_généraux_li...

maxxxxx 8y ago

Read a little about history of WW1. Especially the French generals ignored new developments in warfare like camouflage clothing or steel helmets. They sent probably hundreds of thousands of soldiers into death out of sheer arrogance. And yes, they lived in splendor. They liked to set up their headquarters in castles and other luxury properties. They didn't live in trenches or underground while artillery was falling on them. They ate well while their infantry almost starved and had no water. I am German and I am aware of the crimes the Germans committed during WW1 and WW2. I just object to the tendency of making generals virtuous heroes while nobody talks about the foot soldiers. The German generals were callous assholes and so were most of the other generals.

Svip 8y ago
You say that as if generals decides war all on their own. Generals generally don't decide when to go to war, civilian leadership usually does. While the Military School thinking prevailing at the time definitely did not consider the lessons learnt from the American Civil War relevant, this was also a political issue. While generals still thought of war as a series of set piece battles, politicians also thought of it this way, feeling it unnecessary to provide their armies with 'unnecessary equipment' like camouflage. A lot of generals during WW1 thought in the Franco-Prussian War, so most of them had been foot soldiers themselves in the past. They knew the horror, but they didn't understand the effectiveness of the machine guns. Well, until, essentially, it was too late. Are they innocent? No. Did they send hundreds of thousands into their death out of arrogance? Probably more out of ignorance and political pressure. If you look at the deadliest battles of WW1, they come later in the war. And they come after politicians demand action, rather than just entrenched warfare. All I am saying; don't let politicians off the hook. They likely share more of the blame than the generals.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  Top generals are politicians.
deeg 8y ago
I hear what you're saying but the problem is that, when retelling the history of a large battle, no foot soldier plays a large enough part to give the reader a good sense of the overall event. An author can try to incorporate the grunts but they run the risk of overwhelming the reader with names that need to be kept track of. The stories of the foot soldier can be told but they are usually closer to a biography rather than over-arching history. Author Stephen Ambrose was one of the best at it. His books "Citizen Soldier" and "Band of Brothers" (among others) are excellent.
baud147258 8y ago
> French generals ignored new developments in warfare like camouflage clothing or steel helmets For the helmet, it didn't last long, since the Adrian helmet was introduced in 1915 [0]. And at the start of the war, I don't think any army had standard issue steel helmets. For the clothing, the standard issue also switched to the navy blue in 1915. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_helmet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_helmet

baud147258 8y ago

Considering the number of French generals who were sacked in 1914 after the start of the war [0] (one third of them), there was still a skill problem. [0]https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limogeage#Liste_de_généraux_limogés_en_1914 https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limogeage#Liste_de_généraux_li...