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 Milit

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.