3 ms·
I understand that the author was just using WW1 western front strategy & tactics for illustrative purposes, but I feel that far too many people think that the l
by rmah 5y ago
I understand that the author was just using WW1 western front strategy & tactics for illustrative purposes, but I feel that far too many people think that the leadership of the armies involved were simply idiots, stuck in the mud, etc. The reality is quite different.
Most military strategists understood before the war broke out how important recent tech developments (e.g. machine guns, improved artillery, etc) were in the defense. Prior to the outbreak of hostilities, most military thinkers felt that it was best to bypass defensive fortifications. They understood that charging trenches and machine guns would lead to horrendous casualties. They wanted to fight a war of maneuver to counter strong static defenses. This was essentially a no-brainer.
What they did not foresee was 1) how rapidly ad-hoc fortifications (i.e. trench lines) could be extended; and 2) the massive amount of ammunition expenditure by artillery. That part is critical... because it means that advances had to slow down to account for the logistics train. Which meant that fortifications couldn't be as easily bypassed... which meant trenches could be extended further...
And thus, quite rapidly, the entire western front was covered in trenches/fortifications. At that point, it all becomes political. The governments want a win. At any cost. And orders are orders. When you can't go around, there's not much you can do but charge forward (after an huge artillery barrage, of course... which leads to more logistical headaches)
In short, the military leadership in ww1 wasn't any more "stupid" than usual. They were simply stuck between a rock and hard place.
- antocv 5y agoIt was still pretty stupid to not see that situation is the situation in 1915 and calling for a cease-fire and peace talks, stop right there, for the benefit of all sides.
- jjeaff 5y agoIs that stupidity though? All it takes is one side that is evil enough to be willing to sacrifice as many lives as necessary to accomplish their goals. They may have well known how many lives it would cost and did not care.
- jeffdn 5y agoGermany, the aggressor, had a substantial chunk of France and Belgium in their control at that time, and were, for all intents and purposes, winning the war from defensive positions. They had no incentive to initiate peace talks. Had the French or British initiated peace talks, it would've been essentially a surrender, and involved the loss of territory. There was no way that either side was going to budge when that was the status quo. When the Hundred Days offensive kicked off, and Germany was being pushed back on the Western Front, and with their home front on the brink of collapse due to blockade-induced starvation, they did indeed initiate peace talks.
- cpleppert 5y ago>> What they did not foresee was 1) how rapidly ad-hoc fortifications (i.e. trench lines) could be extended From the planning of the former chief of staff of the german army 1905: [Along the entire line, the corps] will move on the enemy from position to position as in a siege, advancing by day or night, digging in, advancing again, digging in, etc. They will use all the instruments of modern technology to shake the enemy’s confidence behind his lines. The attack must never be permitted to come to a standstill, as in the East Asian war. come to a standstill = trench warfare; The reason he emphasizes that the attack must come not to a standstill is the dramatically larger armies employed in a future european war make massive fronts of trench lines inevitable. There are multiple commentaries that make exactly this point. Once the germans failed at the seine the military reported to the political leadership that the war was lost precisely for this reason. >> The governments want a win. At any cost. Well, germany believed it had excellent winning odds. But if a compromise treaty was offered to germany by the entente it almost certainly would have been accepted; that was actually the expectation of many german officers. The problem for the entente was that the reason the germans were in favor of a compromise peace was they believed a war would break out again a few years later that they would be in a dramatically stronger position to fight. Russia, for one, was ruined by the summer of 1915. Germany would have benefited a lot more from any temporary peace economically because they would have access to world trade again. Germany's allies would have come out a lot better as well. Basically, any peace offer by france or britain would have been equivalent to a german victory.
- philwelch 5y agoIt's really not that far between the Swiss border and the coast of the North Sea if you have enough soldiers to dig trench lines, either.