Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Yodhrin wrote:
I expect the common perception is down to the fact that it's a lot easier to get away with justifications like "they had to learn" when "learning by doing" doesn't require you to feed (other) human beings into an industrial scale meatgrinder by the thousand.

I think that's true up to a point. But when the core problems driving the stalemate still aren't understood by most people today, when people are free to read 100 years of hindsight analysis with no pressure of an on-going war. As such I'm willing to accept it was a complex problem that was hard to fully appreciate.

As an example, you'll hear people today complain that it was mad to send troops over the line when they could just use artillery to wipe out the enemy. But one of the big issues of the Somme is the British thought the stupendous barrage that kicked off the offensive would do massive damage to the German lines and open the way for the infantry, but in reality the impact of artillery drops off immensely after the opening few salvos.

It's not so much that it was okay to learn as you go. It's more that if people today, with the immense advantages of hingsight still don't get it, it might have been a tougher problem than most realise.

 Yodhrin wrote:
I expect the common perception is down to the fact that it's a lot easier to get away with justifications like "they had to learn" when "learning by doing" doesn't require you to feed (other) human beings into an industrial scale meatgrinder by the thousand.

I agree with the sentiment of this point, but it's always worth remembering that the generals didn't start the war - it was the politicians.

If you haven't read Christopher Clark's 'Sleepwalkers,' a book on how WW1 started, and I book I would recommend to anybody with an interest in the subject,

then you'll see that the outbreak of WW1 was one of the worst diplomatic blunders in human history.

Again, apologies for the spelling, but from Sleepwalkers I learned the following points:

Kaiser Wilhelm's most senior general and top military advisor was a paranoid sczhophrenic who hated the French... if he was looking for impartial advice, he'd come to the wrong place...

Sir Edward Grey, British Foreign Sec. decided to go on holiday for a few days at the height of the July crisis...

Russia decided to mobolise anyway, regardless of any diplomatic moves to stop a war.

France decided to back anything the Russians did...

Like I said, not exactly the finest hour for the political class...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
I expect the common perception is down to the fact that it's a lot easier to get away with justifications like "they had to learn" when "learning by doing" doesn't require you to feed (other) human beings into an industrial scale meatgrinder by the thousand.

I think that's true up to a point. But when the core problems driving the stalemate still aren't understood by most people today, when people are free to read 100 years of hindsight analysis with no pressure of an on-going war. As such I'm willing to accept it was a complex problem that was hard to fully appreciate.

As an example, you'll hear people today complain that it was mad to send troops over the line when they could just use artillery to wipe out the enemy. But one of the big issues of the Somme is the British thought the stupendous barrage that kicked off the offensive would do massive damage to the German lines and open the way for the infantry, but in reality the impact of artillery drops off immensely after the opening few salvos.

It's not so much that it was okay to learn as you go. It's more that if people today, with the immense advantages of hingsight still don't get it, it might have been a tougher problem than most realise.

But not everybody bought the myth that it would be easy, or over by Christmas.

Kitchener, who became the British Secretary of State for War in 1914, caused a few voiced words of dissapproval to be raised when he told the cabinet in 1914, that the war would last for 3 years, and "plumb the depths of Britain's manpower to the last million."

I have a Kitchener biography, and he studied the lessons of the Russo-Japanese war, and of course, he himself had noted the large numbers of troops he had needed to defeat the Boers in the Boer war.

Kitchener had seen what modern Mauser rifles in the hands of the Boers had done to British troops in the conflcit.

So, yeah, there were one or two people who were totally realistic about the type of war WW1 would be. Sadly, their voices were not heeded.

Some, such as Cadorna or von Hotzenndorf, deserve their reputations.

Some, like Bing, do not deserve a reputation of being donkeys.

Some, like Haige, deserve something of a bad reputation on the basis of doing the same thing after it was proved not to work the first time, but not as bad as they get because no-one really had a better idea.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
Some, such as Cadorna or von Hotzenndorf, deserve their reputations.

Some, like Bing, do not deserve a reputation of being donkeys.

Some, like Haige, deserve something of a bad reputation on the basis of doing the same thing after it was proved not to work the first time, but not as bad as they get because no-one really had a better idea.

Your fellow countrymen, under the able and gifted leadership of Arthur Curry, seemed to have adapted very quickly to trenchwarfare, and indeed, helped to pioneer early combined arms tactics.

Add Monash and the Australians to that lsit as well. So, if they could do it, why not everybody else?

Even the Germans took at least 3 years to develop Stormtrooper tactics...

 sebster wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
I expect the common perception is down to the fact that it's a lot easier to get away with justifications like "they had to learn" when "learning by doing" doesn't require you to feed (other) human beings into an industrial scale meatgrinder by the thousand.

I think that's true up to a point. But when the core problems driving the stalemate still aren't understood by most people today, when people are free to read 100 years of hindsight analysis with no pressure of an on-going war. As such I'm willing to accept it was a complex problem that was hard to fully appreciate.

As an example, you'll hear people today complain that it was mad to send troops over the line when they could just use artillery to wipe out the enemy. But one of the big issues of the Somme is the British thought the stupendous barrage that kicked off the offensive would do massive damage to the German lines and open the way for the infantry, but in reality the impact of artillery drops off immensely after the opening few salvos.

It's not so much that it was okay to learn as you go. It's more that if people today, with the immense advantages of hingsight still don't get it, it might have been a tougher problem than most realise.

No it was made to keep sending them over the side. period. The entire period of 1915 - 1917 was mad on both sides.
Its the fault of the generals. Its the fault of the politicians and kings.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
But not everybody bought the myth that it would be easy, or over by Christmas.

That's not my point. What I'm saying, basically, is that when people today still don't understand the causes of stalemate, then I'm inclined to give some leeway to the generals of the time that it was a complex problem and one that was actually quite hard to solve.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
No it was made to keep sending them over the side. period.

This was just discussed. The idea that troops were sent in to pointless, mass slaughter is a myth. Most assaults reached the enemy trenches, more than a third of assaults actually achieved their first wave objectives. Nor was either side working on the myth of a huge breakthrough after the early stages of the war. Verdun was started by the Germans as an attritional offensive, to 'bleed France white'. The Germans thought Verdun was a position the French couldn't abandon, but would have to defend at a strategic disadvantage. But despite some amazing early successes the Germans failed to capture all the ground they needed to dominate the position, and combined with France building a strong supply line meant in the end French and German casualties were roughly equal.

The British and French responded with the Somme, which despite talk of being a hammer blow on the Germans, was in fact designed to relieve pressure at Verdun and place attritional pressure on Germany. Despite some early disasters it succeeded in these goals.

So no, this idea that troops were just being sent blindly in to slaughter was nonsense. This doesn't mean doctrines were as good as could be, far from it, but it does mean things were a lot more complex than the popular myth you're repeating here.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Russia decided to mobolise anyway, regardless of any diplomatic moves to stop a war.

Russia really had no choice but to begin mobilisation. If they didn't mobilise prior to the war beginning, they would have been left in a terrible position should the Germans attack, due to the difficulties in transporting large numbers of men and material in Tsarist Russia.

Extra History did what I thought was a great series of videos examining the causes of the war.



EDIT: They also did a series on Bismark which I think you'd enjoy, DINLT. You probably know it all already from your reading but they still make it fun with their phrasing and comic images

WW1 was the fault of Germany giving Austria a blank cheque in support of the Austrian aggression towards Serbia.

Russia had to support Serbia. The Austrians didn't dare attack Serbia without German support against the intervention of Russia.

QED.

Once mobilisation was triggered in a nation, the huge volume and complexity of intricately planned movements of troops, trains and equipment was impossible to halt without throwing everything into chaos.

 sebster wrote:
I think more than that, though, the war has come to defined by this idea of futile trench assaults across no man's land. It's not actually true.... So most initially successful assaults were generally defeated by a quicker reacting counter-offensive.

I'd argue a trench assault that is immediately lost to a counter offensive would be a pretty futile one.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
WW1 was the fault of Germany giving Austria a blank cheque in support of the Austrian aggression towards Serbia.

Russia had to support Serbia. The Austrians didn't dare attack Serbia without German support against the intervention of Russia.

QED.

Once mobilisation was triggered in a nation, the huge volume and complexity of intricately planned movements of troops, trains and equipment was impossible to halt without throwing everything into chaos.

This is all true, but let's not forget that it was Serbian terrorists, with links to the Serbian government, that murdered the heir to the Austrian-Hungarian throne...

Britain, France, Germany would all have reacted the same as Austria.

Imagine the British reaction if Prince Edward had been murdered by foreign terrorists backed by their state government...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Russia decided to mobolise anyway, regardless of any diplomatic moves to stop a war.

Russia really had no choice but to begin mobilisation. If they didn't mobilise prior to the war beginning, they would have been left in a terrible position should the Germans attack, due to the difficulties in transporting large numbers of men and material in Tsarist Russia.

Extra History did what I thought was a great series of videos examining the causes of the war.



EDIT: They also did a series on Bismark which I think you'd enjoy, DINLT. You probably know it all already from your reading but they still make it fun with their phrasing and comic images

I shall add it to the watch list. Thank you

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
WW1 was the fault of Germany giving Austria a blank cheque in support of the Austrian aggression towards Serbia.

Russia had to support Serbia. The Austrians didn't dare attack Serbia without German support against the intervention of Russia.

QED.

Once mobilisation was triggered in a nation, the huge volume and complexity of intricately planned movements of troops, trains and equipment was impossible to halt without throwing everything into chaos.

This is all true, but let's not forget that it was Serbian terrorists, with links to the Serbian government, that murdered the heir to the Austrian-Hungarian throne...

Britain, France, Germany would all have reacted the same as Austria.

Imagine the British reaction if Prince Edward had been murdered by foreign terrorists backed by their state government...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Russia decided to mobolise anyway, regardless of any diplomatic moves to stop a war.

Russia really had no choice but to begin mobilisation. If they didn't mobilise prior to the war beginning, they would have been left in a terrible position should the Germans attack, due to the difficulties in transporting large numbers of men and material in Tsarist Russia.

Extra History did what I thought was a great series of videos examining the causes of the war.



EDIT: They also did a series on Bismark which I think you'd enjoy, DINLT. You probably know it all already from your reading but they still make it fun with their phrasing and comic images

I shall add it to the watch list. Thank you

That's just your claim, and anyway it's irrelevant because the point is that it was Germany unconditional 100% support for whatever Austria wanted to do that led to the war.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


That's just your claim, and anyway it's irrelevant because the point is that it was Germany unconditional 100% support for whatever Austria wanted to do that led to the war.

But it wasn't. Austria-Hungary vs Serbia would have been one of the countless minor wars the Balkans have seen over the centuries if Russia had not decided to unconditionally support Serbia, and if France and Britain had not decided to support Russia. When people fight, the blame for the fight is virtually always shared between them. Nobody was forcing Russia, France or Britain to go to war. They went to war because that is what they wanted. Therefore, WW1 is as much their fault as Germany's. Germany wasn't trying to bring about a Europe-wide war. They would likely never have given Austria a carte blanche if they had known that Russia would actually go to war with them over the issue. And Russia would never have gone to war with Austria-Hungary and Germany if they had not been assured of the support of France and Britain. And of course nothing of this all would have ever happened if Serbia hadn't supported the assassins, which they would have never done if they had not been assured of Russian support in case of war, or if Austria-Hungary had not been so set on invading Serbia. Germany's support for Austria was just one decision in the long chain of events and decisions that led to the war. It was not the decisive decision that started it.
Really, if you want to blame anyone for the war, blame those who fired the first shots: The Austrians, the Hungarians, and the Serbs. It was their decision to pull the trigger that ultimately started the war.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


That's just your claim, and anyway it's irrelevant because the point is that it was Germany unconditional 100% support for whatever Austria wanted to do that led to the war.

But it wasn't. Austria-Hungary vs Serbia would have been one of the countless minor wars the Balkans have seen over the centuries if Russia had not decided to unconditionally support Serbia, and if France and Britain had not decided to support Russia. When people fight, the blame for the fight is virtually always shared between them. Nobody was forcing Russia, France or Britain to go to war. They went to war because that is what they wanted. Therefore, WW1 is as much their fault as Germany's. Germany wasn't trying to bring about a Europe-wide war. They would likely never have given Austria a carte blanche if they had known that Russia would actually go to war with them over the issue. And Russia would never have gone to war with Austria-Hungary and Germany if they had not been assured of the support of France and Britain. And of course nothing of this all would have ever happened if Serbia hadn't supported the assassins, which they would have never done if they had not been assured of Russian support in case of war, or if Austria-Hungary had not been so set on invading Serbia. Germany's support for Austria was just one decision in the long chain of events and decisions that led to the war. It was not the decisive decision that started it.
Really, if you want to blame anyone for the war, blame those who fired the first shots: The Austrians, the Hungarians, and the Serbs. It was their decision to pull the trigger that ultimately started the war.

A good post, but technically, is the Arch-Duke not to blame?

I remember an article once that talks about how he survived the first assassination attempt, but then foolishly decided to keep going with his official visit.

His driver then took the wrong turn, and drove up the street where the gunman was...

And the rest is 4 years of death, Communism, Versailles, Nazism, WW2...

Funny how history turns on such smal margins...

But back OT.

Russia had a capable general in Brusilov, who's 1916 offensive nearly knocked the Austrians out of the war.

From what I can tell, the rest of the Russian generals were a hopeless bunch - the Czar's relatives or overpromoted cronies.

What's your Russian view of Russian generals in WW1? I can imagine they are overshadow by WW2 Russian generals - Zhukov and all that...

 Iron_Captain wrote:

When people fight, the blame for the fight is virtually always shared between them. Nobody was forcing Russia, France or Britain to go to war. They went to war because that is what they wanted. Therefore, WW1 is as much their fault as Germany's.

No. In a word. That's like saying that if two blokes assault your friend next to you, you're as much to blame for starting the resulting punch-up by weighing in next to them. Germany spent the better part of the prior decade trying to scare and bully people into appeasing it (or to carry on with the above analogy, shouting threatening insults, cracking knuckles and waving broken bottles). They were determined to have their 'place in the Sun' from which they could dominate Europe. Germany declared war next to Austria Hungary very deliberately with those gains in mind.

You could ostensibly say that Russia was much to blame for the Austria-Hungary/Serbian situation as the other lot were, and there'd be some merit to it. But Germany's decision to escalate it eastwards and go for Russia was entirely their own. Their subsequent decision to then make unreasonable demands of France and declare war on them almost immediately afterwards was also entirely their fault. France really had little choice in the matter, Germany went for them virtually before they had time to put together a reply. That then placed Britain in a very uncomfortable position. The British proposed a peace conference, and were rebuffed. Even then, the British tried to stay out of it and said that if Belgium was left alone, they'd remain uninvolved.

But then Germany went through Belgium. And the rest is, as they say, history. Germany was very, very much to blame for the First 'World' War. Sure, Russia and Austria-Hungary have some blame for their own argy bargy; but Germany's decisions alone effectively forced themselves, the British and the French into the field. Which then ended up bringing in the Americans, the Turks, the Japanese, the Italians, and people from all around the world. Germany personally took it from 'Balkans Annual Scrap #123' to "World War" and consequently shoulder the blame for that development. Nobody else.

Couldn't have put it better myself. Germany's support for Austria-Hungary was the factor that enabled a war between major powers (if anything, Russia mobilising made war less likely, as without German backing, they were enough of a threat to AH that the latter would have to back down). In that regard, Germany (and if you really want to be specific, Bethmann-Hollweg) has to take the largest portion of blame for the conflict escalating beyond a regional scrap. Throw in Moltke's obsession with smashing the French just like his uncle had (the one that was actually a good planner and commander!) and it's hard not to blame Germany.

The Kaiser can perhaps come off a little better, as his fault is really apathy rather than malice. Going on holiday at the height of a global crisis is undeniable an incredibly dumb thing for a head of state to do, but there's plenty of evidence to suggest the war was not something he actively sought or enabled, unlike the two aforementioned individuals.


Back to the Generals question, it's interesting how the poll appears to be weighted very heavily towards 'yes' but the answers in the thread are mostly 'no'.

 Ketara wrote:


No. In a word. That's like saying that if two blokes assault your friend next to you, you're as much to blame for starting the resulting punch-up by weighing in next to them. Germany spent the better part of the prior decade trying to scare and bully people into appeasing it (or to carry on with the above analogy, shouting threatening insults, cracking knuckles and waving broken bottles). They were determined to have their 'place in the Sun' from which they could dominate Europe. Germany declared war next to Austria Hungary very deliberately with those gains in mind.

The French were far from innocent either. They'd been lusting after a war with Germany since 1870. 'Remember alsas and Lorraine' was their war cry.

And to be fair to your analogy, your mate was happy for the fight too, and was hurling his own abuse. And if it ends up with everyone battered and bloodied, and the police, or neutral bystanders come along, your mate is as much guilty for causing the fracas in their eyes as the original two. After all, he could have walked away and ignored them. Instead he got involved and Escalated it.

Please lets not go down the road where you are justfying the sham that Was Versailles and it's whole purpose of 'screw Germany, and let's wash our hands of all the blame'.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


That's just your claim, and anyway it's irrelevant because the point is that it was Germany unconditional 100% support for whatever Austria wanted to do that led to the war.

But it wasn't. Austria-Hungary vs Serbia would have been one of the countless minor wars the Balkans have seen over the centuries if Russia had not decided to unconditionally support Serbia, and if France and Britain had not decided to support Russia. ...

If Germany had not unconditionally supported Austria, they woudl not have dared to invade Serbia and WW1 would not have happened. The rest of the nations were sucked into the conflict by the German action.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


What's your Russian view of Russian generals in WW1? I can imagine they are overshadow by WW2 Russian generals - Zhukov and all that...

In short, most Russian generals of the 20th century Russian Empire were very incompetent, reaching their positions only because they were nobility, not because they had skill or proper education. Some of these generals were competent but not really exceptional and only one of them, Brusilov, was really notable.

Brusilov was great. The others are barely remembered. Not just because of their horrible performance in the war against Germany and Austria-Hungary, but also because they chose the wrong side in the Civil War. Brusilov sided with the reds. Most of the others sided with the whites. It is not that there weren't any good Russian generals besides Brusilov, but the Soviets obviously never made an effort to remember the positive things about their enemies. So that is why only the big hero (Brusilov), the grossly incompetent (such as Samsonov and Von Rennenkampf) or the ones that played a notable role in the civil war (such as Alekseev, Yudenich or Kornilov) are somewhat remembered while other moderately competent generals (such as Ivanov or Selivanov) are pretty much entirely forgotten. You are very right in saying that they were overshadowed, mostly by their opponents in the Civil War, such as Trotsky, Budyonny, and Tukhachevsky and by the huge shadow of the Great Patriotic War, so even Brusilov isn't really well known. Probably the most notable military leader of that whole period is Chapaev. And that is only because we love telling jokes about him.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


That's just your claim, and anyway it's irrelevant because the point is that it was Germany unconditional 100% support for whatever Austria wanted to do that led to the war.

But it wasn't. Austria-Hungary vs Serbia would have been one of the countless minor wars the Balkans have seen over the centuries if Russia had not decided to unconditionally support Serbia, and if France and Britain had not decided to support Russia. ...

If Germany had not unconditionally supported Austria, they woudl not have dared to invade Serbia and WW1 would not have happened. The rest of the nations were sucked into the conflict by the German action.

If Russia had not unconditionally supported Serbia, they would not have dared to challenge Austria and WW1 would not have happened. The rest of the nations were sucked into the conflict by the Russian action.
If France had not unconditionally supported Russia, they would not have dared to mobilise against Germany and Austria and WW1 would not have happened. The rest of the nations were sucked into the conflict by the French action.

You need to explain why Germany supporting its allies led to war while other countries doing exactly the same thing did not. WW1 happened because of the web of alliances. The Russians, British, French and Serbs were equally guilty of making alliances as were the Germans and Austro-Hungarians.

Deadnight wrote:

The French were far from innocent either. They'd been lusting after a war with Germany since 1870. 'Remember alsas and Lorraine' was their war cry.

No. To repeat the word. Factually, no.

There were certainly some hotheads looking to right the wrong of the Franco-Prusso war on both sides, but few people seriously worked that into their calculations. You have to remember; that particular war happened in 1870. The First World War was in 1914. Life expectancy in those days was not particularly impressive for the masses. There were not a vast number of people old enough to remember the first war, let alone resent the outcome. By 1913, it was a bit like how the whole Gibraltar thing is perceived today in Spain; the politicians wheel it out to rabblerouse and try to distract people with at awkward moments, but it has little serious pull on national emotion.

Furthermore, there had been multiple war scares across Europe in that timespan. You have to remember, the alliance system wasn't dreamed up overnight. There was no reason that 1914 specifically had to be the year for mass escalation, any more than 1888 had to have been, or 1927. There was no inevitability about World War One; despite common portrayals. The alliance system was far from solid on all sides. Christ, when the possibility was first mooted in 1912 of the British Army supporting the French, all bar two members of the Cabinet were against it.

And to be fair to your analogy, your mate was happy for the fight too, and was hurling his own abuse. And if it ends up with everyone battered and bloodied, and the police, or neutral bystanders come along, your mate is as much guilty for causing the fracas in their eyes as the original two. After all, he could have walked away and ignored them. Instead he got involved and Escalated it.

Given the British attempts to arrange a peace conference, lack of firm commitment to the Entente, and the French doubt over whether or not to support Russia, this is patently, factually, demonstrably untrue.

Please lets not go down the road where you are justfying the sham that Was Versailles and it's whole purpose of 'screw Germany, and let's wash our hands of all the blame'.

Versailles has nothing to do with it. If we're considering the causes of a 'World' war (note the very careful articulation of the word 'world), Germany was the prime instigator of massive escalation from virtually every direction. Austria Hungary vs Russia at that point would have been a cripple fight. Germany very consciously took actions which they knew would draw in both France and most likely Britain.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

You need to explain why Germany supporting its allies led to war while other countries doing exactly the same thing did not. WW1 happened because of the web of alliances.

This is essentially where your understanding of it is flawed. I don't blame you for that, most countries teach this subject in a 'He declared war, so she declared war, so he declared war' style. Keeps it simplistic. But in reality, the alliance system set the board, but did not move the pieces.

Russia and Austria-Hungary both deserve blame as the primary instigators. Germany deserves blame for jumping in headfirst because they saw it as a way of attaining political goals. France though? France entered the war because Germany left them no choice but to do so. They were presented with terms by Germany which were completely unacceptable if they wanted to stay neutral. Britain meanwhile, actively decided they would not join the war if Belgium wasn't violated, France and Russia be damned.

In other words, the alliances really were not the reason France/Britain joined in.

I would argue, the breakdown of natural alliances between Britain and Austria against allowing Russian access to the Mediterranean is what led to the war. Austria could no longer count on British support and was forced to ally with Germany as the only other nation opposed to Russian aggression.

Do WW1 generals deserve their bad reputation? Hard to say. I forget the exact name of the battle, but whichever one it was proved that with proper, detailed reconnaissance and rehearsal, it was possible to win at trench warfare. But it required everything going 100% to plan. If anything went wrong, or circumstances changed, they were unable to react quickly enough to deal with it. When your communication network was as bad as it was back then it really is hard to properly conduct a war on that scale. Pigeons and telephones don't really compare to a radio.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


What's your Russian view of Russian generals in WW1? I can imagine they are overshadow by WW2 Russian generals - Zhukov and all that...

In short, most Russian generals of the 20th century Russian Empire were very incompetent, reaching their positions only because they were nobility, not because they had skill or proper education. Some of these generals were competent but not really exceptional and only one of them, Brusilov, was really notable.

Brusilov was great. The others are barely remembered. Not just because of their horrible performance in the war against Germany and Austria-Hungary, but also because they chose the wrong side in the Civil War. Brusilov sided with the reds. Most of the others sided with the whites. It is not that there weren't any good Russian generals besides Brusilov, but the Soviets obviously never made an effort to remember the positive things about their enemies. So that is why only the big hero (Brusilov), the grossly incompetent (such as Samsonov and Von Rennenkampf) or the ones that played a notable role in the civil war (such as Alekseev, Yudenich or Kornilov) are somewhat remembered while other moderately competent generals (such as Ivanov or Selivanov) are pretty much entirely forgotten. You are very right in saying that they were overshadowed, mostly by their opponents in the Civil War, such as Trotsky, Budyonny, and Tukhachevsky and by the huge shadow of the Great Patriotic War, so even Brusilov isn't really well known. Probably the most notable military leader of that whole period is Chapaev. And that is only because we love telling jokes about him.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


That's just your claim, and anyway it's irrelevant because the point is that it was Germany unconditional 100% support for whatever Austria wanted to do that led to the war.

But it wasn't. Austria-Hungary vs Serbia would have been one of the countless minor wars the Balkans have seen over the centuries if Russia had not decided to unconditionally support Serbia, and if France and Britain had not decided to support Russia. ...

If Germany had not unconditionally supported Austria, they woudl not have dared to invade Serbia and WW1 would not have happened. The rest of the nations were sucked into the conflict by the German action.

If Russia had not unconditionally supported Serbia, they would not have dared to challenge Austria and WW1 would not have happened. The rest of the nations were sucked into the conflict by the Russian action.
If France had not unconditionally supported Russia, they would not have dared to mobilise against Germany and Austria and WW1 would not have happened. The rest of the nations were sucked into the conflict by the French action.

You need to explain why Germany supporting its allies led to war while other countries doing exactly the same thing did not. WW1 happened because of the web of alliances. The Russians, British, French and Serbs were equally guilty of making alliances as were the Germans and Austro-Hungarians.

I dont think its fair to call either Rennenkampf (who did save his army) and Samsonov "incompetent". A lot of things happened that was not under their control and to be fair, they were not nearly as well supplied with essentials as their opponents (Samsonov did not even have a copy of the code book) adding insult to injury stavka had to send orders over the open. the deck was certainly stacked against them.


I also think its way too easy for people to forget the conditions that WW1 was fought under, we have had decades to second guess these guys, but they had to go with what they had at the time and what they knew and were trained to do. It was a new and horrible style of war in a changing world.

 thekingofkings wrote:

I also think its way too easy for people to forget the conditions that WW1 was fought under, we have had decades to second guess these guys, but they had to go with what they had at the time and what they knew and were trained to do. It was a new and horrible style of war in a changing world.

I definitely agree with this point. . . Even those who weren't versed in Napoleonic tactics (many American commanders were blooded fighting in various campaigns in the SW, or the Philippine Insurrection and the like) were trained/experienced in things which would have little to no bearing on the conduct of WW1.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'd argue a trench assault that is immediately lost to a counter offensive would be a pretty futile one.

Missing the point, though. First up, high command on all sides engaged in the Western Front realised it was an attritional war. Verdun was started not to capture area, but to force the French in to losing many more troops stabilising the area than the Germans lost in threatening it. The Somme was begun for much the same reason, to draw German forces from Verdun, and to cost Germany troops it couldn't replace. If the actual fighting meant launching an offensive and then losing that ground in a counter offensive, that still met the strategic objectives if the result got enough enemy troops killed.

Second up, the point is that while infiltration tactics, combined arms, orders of operation, wide over deep penetrations etc took time to develop as effective strategies, the reasons the war bogged down are way more complex than 'machine guns make offensives futile', which is the common understanding. And so, given that today people have the benefit of 100 years of learning to come to appreciate the real reasons and most people still haven't wrapped their heads around it... I'm inclined to give the generals of the time the benefit of the doubt, because they were working in real time, trying to understand the situation as it unfolded.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Do WW1 generals deserve their bad reputation? Hard to say. I forget the exact name of the battle, but whichever one it was proved that with proper, detailed reconnaissance and rehearsal, it was possible to win at trench warfare. But it required everything going 100% to plan. If anything went wrong, or circumstances changed, they were unable to react quickly enough to deal with it. When your communication network was as bad as it was back then it really is hard to properly conduct a war on that scale. Pigeons and telephones don't really compare to a radio.

It was always possible to succeed in an offensive. Every nation did it on small scale fairly often, and by the end of the war they all managed it in larger scales. The problem was it was translating those tactical and operational successes in to strategic gains.

I never understood the WW I tactic of throwing millions of men headlong directly at each others trench.

FFS invade somewhere there wasn't a trench to hurtle into...

Take a port city and stage a mainland invasion...

Invade from a connected country (you mean, like the Germans did?!?)

I just never got it. As Sun Tzu said:

* If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him.

* So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong, and strike at what is weak.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
I never understood the WW I tactic of throwing millions of men headlong directly at each others trench.

FFS invade somewhere there wasn't a trench to hurtle into...

Take a port city and stage a mainland invasion...

Invade from a connected country (you mean, like the Germans did?!?)

I just never got it. As Sun Tzu said:

* If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him.

* So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong, and strike at what is weak.

It's a lot more complicated than that!

I've been doing further reading on it, and the Canadians are a good example, because they were very very good at this.

So, before dawn, as quietly as possible, troops creep out as close as possible to the enemy.

Your barrage starts shelling the German trenches for a set time.

Whilst this is happening, you advance forward, as close as you dare to your own barrage

And then the fighting starts...

The Canadians were very quick to use Lewis guns as portable LMGs for suppressing the enemy, they also hit upon the novel idea of zig-zagging, and moving from cover to cover. This was not orthodox at the time, and they used portable mortars for tough targets like machine guns built into pill boxes or similar concrete structures...

Tanks obviously helped as well.

However, as it's been pointed out by others, storming the trenches was not the problem - it's fighting off the counter-attacks. The enemy could quickly bring up reserves, so you need artillery to break this up. As the war developed, the British became very good at this, but it was a hard learning curve.

The Hindenburg Line was a fiendish and evil defence system with its own challenges for the attacker to overcome - battle zones, support trenches, and just a thin screen in front to funnel attackers into a killing zone...

But they eventually smashed through it.

These were hard won lessons, with a lot of trial and error. Most commanders knew the futility of troops walking towards machine-guns, but it took a long time for new tech and tactics to catch up.

And on a strategic level, you have to consider that by mid-1915 at the latest, there was basically an unbroken front line across the whole of central Europe. Attempts to open up other fronts were made, Galipolli being the most notable, but they largely failed. It wasn't a case of 'attacking somewhere that there weren't trenches', because that defensive network quite literally divided the continent. Anywhere the fighting occurred, the belligerents were thoroughly dug in because that was the only reliable way to hold ground against a modern offensive.

And as for port cities, it's quite hard to launch a naval invasion of Germany, what with it being landlocked and all...

 Paradigm wrote:


And as for port cities, it's quite hard to launch a naval invasion of Germany, what with it being landlocked and all...

Germany is not landlocked...and wasn't during WW 1.

It is accessed by the North Sea and Baltic Sea.

True, Geography fail on my part... For some reason I thought Denmark and Holland bordered each other and cut Germany off from the sea. My bad.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
I never understood the WW I tactic of throwing millions of men headlong directly at each others trench.

FFS invade somewhere there wasn't a trench to hurtle into...

Take a port city and stage a mainland invasion...

The idea you are suggesting was actually mooted many times (primarily by the Navy). Suffice to say it was ruled out just as many times for very many reasons too long to be enumerated here.