Who was the Greatest WW1 strategist?

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Shady
Richard, there is no reason to get personal.

Look, I'm sorry if I was getting personal before, but you've sure reinforced my concern and made me real eager to get personal now. Rationalizing the aggressive invasion of a neutral country is something that personally offends me. Change your view and I will change my attitude...

Originally posted by Shady
The Belgian question - Germany had no right to invade Belgium? Belgium had several days to accept a simple transit of German troops. Why did Germany issue an ultimatum instead of just invading right away? Rumors of a French plan to send troops into Belgium that August were the reason. Preventive intervention. The Belgiam army resisted and was slaughtered. These "atrocities" that were committed were justified at the time since the franc-tireurs were cowarding behind bushes etc., sniping german soldiers. To do this they had to have support from the local population. So those "atrocities" that happened were isolated incidents that don't distinguish the amount of atrocities done on any side of the war which means that everybody was doing it and to single out Germany would be B.S. There wasn't any better course of action because the Belgians wouldn't stop. As long as they aid their soldiers in cowardly practices they should be considered not only combatants, but spies for which death penalty is completely acceptable.

This is literally the most disturbing example of revisionist history I have ever seen in this forum.

1. It is a documented fact that the "rumors of French invasion" of Belgium were concocted to justify an already planned invasion. Given that French troops were withdrawaling from the frontier during their mobilization in an attempt to avoid war, and given that German intelligence had an accurate picture of french deployments, it is hard to see how you could beleive such an absurd rationalization. It is also a documented fact that Germany planned a wide invasion of Belgium and Luxembourg on a broad front in the event of any great power war, plans put in place well over a decade before the "rumors" you speak of.

2. German troops retaliated for guerrilla resistance to an unprovoked invasion by shooting civilians in reprisals.

Yes, as you will see elsewhere in this forum, I'm not one to claim that any civilization or nation has been "clean," but the fact is, you argued that fake propaganda about atrocities in Belgium led to American intervention, and I'm saying that the propaganda was credible because of real atrocities. Are you arguing that shooting civilians with no proven connection to guerrilla action as a reprisal for the actions of guerrillas is NOT an atrocity?

Yes, Belgium is the aggressor in 1914, I see that now!

3. Needless to say, you have some reading to do on the laws of soveriegnty. Would Germany have meekly said "yes," if my ancestors in the British Army had asked for a "simple transit" or a "preventative deployment" in German territory in 1914? I suspect not! I might add that any such transit would have been (and, uh, was) a gross violation of Germany's signed guarantee of Belgian neutrality.

4. There was a better course of action than shooting civilians. Withdraw from Belgium - or better yet, don't invade it in the first place.

As for your Jutland comments, I think the fact that you describe it as both a close draw and a loss for Britain speaks for itself.

So, sorry if I'm getting personal, but you're sort of provoking it.

R.III

 

[MajorGeneral2]

Certainly, Germany did not have the right to invade Belgium. Unfortunately, it was the only way they could get to Paris fast enough to end the war quickly. It came back to haunt them, though, so remember that. All it wound up doing was to add another two nations for them to fight, because it gave Belgium little choice but to enter, but also gave Britain the needed excuse to get involved. Thus, justice was served, I suppose.
Shady, I agree on some points, but you really need to put more hard evidence and reasoning behind your arguments. Remember that people tend to be patient and willing to read a long post if you make it interesting.
KittenofChaos, based on your statistics, 4.2 million French, British and Russian soldiers were killed, compared to 3 million between Germany and Austria-Hungary. Thus, the Germans killed 1.2 million more than they lost. That's roughly 25% more, showing they were that much more efficient. I will agree that it is little use comparing hard numbers without examing what was accomplished with them. So what did they achieve with this? Near victory despite fighting several enemies on several fronts, and defeating all but two of them by 1918!
If the Germans weren't much smarter than their opponents, then how did they last so long against such a massive numerical superiority?

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Originally posted by MajorGeneral2
Certainly, Germany did not have the right to invade Belgium. Unfortunately, it was the only way they could get to Paris fast enough to end the war quickly. It came back to haunt them, though, so remember that. All it wound up doing was to add another two nations for them to fight, because it gave Belgium little choice but to enter, but also gave Britain the needed excuse to get involved. Thus, justice was served, I suppose.
Shady, I agree on some points, but you really need to put more hard evidence and reasoning behind your arguments. Remember that people tend to be patient and willing to read a long post if you make it interesting.
KittenofChaos, based on your statistics, 4.2 million French, British and Russian soldiers were killed, compared to 3 million between Germany and Austria-Hungary. Thus, the Germans killed 1.2 million more than they lost. That's roughly 25% more, showing they were that much more efficient. I will agree that it is little use comparing hard numbers without examing what was accomplished with them. So what did they achieve with this? Near victory despite fighting several enemies on several fronts, and defeating all but two of them by 1918!
If the Germans weren't much smarter than their opponents, then how did they last so long against such a massive numerical superiority?

Because you are merely taking into account, quantitative differences over qualitative, you discount the advantage of the defensive and the natural strength inherrent in the modern defence (in Russia the vast spaces can if used properly reduce this significantly). The skill of the individual soldier via his training and the armourment of that soldier and support via artillery is not anything to do with strategy.


I've made it plain, that considering that Germany had the premier military force in the world at the start of the war whilst Britains army was very small and the French utilised in the early period of the war their army extremely poorly with the Battles of the Frontier, Germany failed not through lack of men, equipment etc but through leadership.

The leadership it was that failed to defeat France in the 6 weeks as planned by Schlieffen. The right wing of the attack was successfully weakened by Moltke with the worst case of which being the transfer of 2 corps of troops from Von Klucks army to Prussia despite his army which was on the right wing which had already been vastly reduced from the recommended strength as specified by Schieffen was further reduced and so was unable to conduct the outflanking of Paris as planned, which was a vital component of the plan.



As for who was the best strategist of WW1...at present I haven't a clue as I've finding it extremely hard to assess the criterion as so many factors contribute to making a General, or leader successful.

At present I'm tempted to choose between Petain (who did alot to save France at Verdun, do much to re-build morale and did much to help the French Army to resist the Germans), Foch or Haig. No Germans?


I found today a on the BBC website an interesting article upon the topic of "Lions lead by Donkeys" which certainly fits in with much of the teaching I received from my history teachers at Grammar School (a little snobby side-comment is that my history teachers had PhDs in the subject and are not your common or garden history teacher!)


Lions Led by Donkeys? The British Army in World War One
By Dr Gary Sheffield

 

[Richard III]

Kitten, do you believe the Germans would have won with those two corps in the front line?

I'm just not sure I can agree that the exhausted and undersupplied units arriving at the gates of Paris would have accomplished much more than to have pushed the stalemate line slightly further into northern France (and perhaps spared the BEF the agony of First Ypres in the process).

(I'm not disagreeing with your premise about the failure of German leadership by saying so, though. Quite the contrary)

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Originally posted by Richard III
Kitten, do you believe the Germans would have won with those two corps in the front line?

I'm just not sure I can agree that the exhausted and undersupplied units arriving at the gates of Paris would have accomplished much more than to have pushed the stalemate line slightly further into northern France (and perhaps spared the BEF the agony of First Ypres in the process).

(I'm not disagreeing with your premise about the failure of German leadership by saying so, though. Quite the contrary)

I don't know if the Germans would have succeeded with those two corps, but had the plan been followed as drawn up originally with a right wing that was over twice as strong as the plan was carried by Moltke I think it would have succeeded. It was the stripping away of force from that right wing by Moltke as he interpretated the plan and as he conducted that showed how inept that gentleman was at carrying out the plan as drawn up by Schieffen which I believe was a sound strategy.

The movement of the two corps just signifies greater than anything else that Moltke etc did not understand the plan and where the cutting edge of the offensive was.

 

[Shady]

Originally posted by Richard III


Look, I'm sorry if I was getting personal before, but you've sure reinforced my concern and made me real eager to get personal now. Rationalizing the aggressive invasion of a neutral country is something that personally offends me. Change your view and I will change my attitude...



This is literally the most disturbing example of revisionist history I have ever seen in this forum.

1. It is a documented fact that the "rumors of French invasion" of Belgium were concocted to justify an already planned invasion. Given that French troops were withdrawaling from the frontier during their mobilization in an attempt to avoid war, and given that German intelligence had an accurate picture of french deployments, it is hard to see how you could beleive such an absurd rationalization. It is also a documented fact that Germany planned a wide invasion of Belgium and Luxembourg on a broad front in the event of any great power war, plans put in place well over a decade before the "rumors" you speak of.

2. German troops retaliated for guerrilla resistance to an unprovoked invasion by shooting civilians in reprisals.

Yes, as you will see elsewhere in this forum, I'm not one to claim that any civilization or nation has been "clean," but the fact is, you argued that fake propaganda about atrocities in Belgium led to American intervention, and I'm saying that the propaganda was credible because of real atrocities. Are you arguing that shooting civilians with no proven connection to guerrilla action as a reprisal for the actions of guerrillas is NOT an atrocity?

Yes, Belgium is the aggressor in 1914, I see that now!

3. Needless to say, you have some reading to do on the laws of soveriegnty. Would Germany have meekly said "yes," if my ancestors in the British Army had asked for a "simple transit" or a "preventative deployment" in German territory in 1914? I suspect not! I might add that any such transit would have been (and, uh, was) a gross violation of Germany's signed guarantee of Belgian neutrality.

4. There was a better course of action than shooting civilians. Withdraw from Belgium - or better yet, don't invade it in the first place.

As for your Jutland comments, I think the fact that you describe it as both a close draw and a loss for Britain speaks for itself.

So, sorry if I'm getting personal, but you're sort of provoking it.

R.III

@ R3
Of course I don't think that at par, just invading a neutral country is justified. But as you of course know, not everything in life can be classified as black and white and have the grey eliminated. Invading Belgium WAS the best course of action because it would save thousands of German lives and on paper could have won the war if everything went according to plan. Yes I know it was part of the Schlieffen plan but the Schlieffen plan was not widely known since Germany pioniered such comprehensive preemptive plans and they had the most time to do a good job at hiding them. The very reason it was so partially successful was because the French didn't know about it, and when it was in progress, thought it was a diversionary attack. The franco-german border was mutually well fortified so an attack from the vosges would have been as catastrophic for the germans as the reciprocal from the french side was.

Since this was obviously a war that the allies provoked and jumped into (not saying the CP's didn't contribute either), Germany was FORCED to fight. That being said, their main objective is going to be to win the war (duh). If they didn't that would very possibly mean the end of the nation since imperialism was at all time high and a treaty such as the one of versailles would have seemed mild compared to one that would most definetly break up the CP's. So therefore since winning the war is vital to national survival, Germany must win and the best and most efficient way to do that would include Belgium. Now from my POV that is what I think anyone with half a brain would have done. Therefore under these circumstances I think it was justified.

But to single out Germany for doing such a thing would be extremelly biased and blinded by old propaganda. What the Brits did to Greece in 1915 and what they were planning to do Norway stinks of the recipe...critical action necessary for victory and national survival (less so in WWI in regards to survival).

Fake propaganda (kinda doublenomer since propaganda is fake already) was mastered and dominated by the British during the war. When a few civilians were killed, they would broaden the base to describe it as mass killings applied with inhuman brutality. Those news and ONLY those news would make it to America since Britain owned most of the transatlantic cables. They also blocked out news that would be unfavorable towards them including military malignancies and atrocities commited on their side of the fence. This is the media that is etched into the annals of history in the western world and causes myths and misconceptions without nearly telling the whole part of the story.

@ KoC

I disagree that leadership was the cause of the failure of the german plan. The German plan was planned by the Army General Staff which was at the time considered the most brilliant group of people on Earth (1880-1918). Their planning was brilliant on paper. It didn't account for small scale delays since conscripts aren't going to be as professional as the regulars, or as fit so they might just sit down and light a bunt or something. The fact that these occured frequently and caused a lot of people to miss the trains, and the fact that Belgium forced a lot of the route to be made on foot, had slowed down the drive through Belgium which was catastrophic for the plan. This isn't just a what-if but it's an unavoidable condition and a failure to realize the most fundemental facts of military planning, is that they count for nothing during battle for exactly factors in that context. It was successful enough to provide the Germans with the key positions in France that would allow them to employ favorable defensive tactics and allow them to develop offensive tactics. So it was really the raw recruit who failed, not the generals and officers.

 

[MajorGeneral2]

@KoC
I actually can see Petain as being called one of the best WWI leaders, though Foch and Haig are a stretch.
I don't see Haig being on this list because he didn't have the resources to carry everyone else to victory. Of course, if he had been especially intelligent, he could have, but he wasn't.
Regarding your last paragraph. The Germans didn't want to leave so few troops in Prussia, just in case. It wouldn't do much good if they had captured Paris, only to have Russia capture Prussia! Hindsight is 20/20, though, so it's easy for us to criticize them for it. At least they learned from this, though, and did come to understand the principles of modern warfare, unlike their opposition.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Originally posted by MajorGeneral2
@KoC
I actually can see Petain as being called one of the best WWI leaders, though Foch and Haig are a stretch.
I don't see Haig being on this list because he didn't have the resources to carry everyone else to victory. Of course, if he had been especially intelligent, he could have, but he wasn't.
Regarding your last paragraph. The Germans didn't want to leave so few troops in Prussia, just in case. It wouldn't do much good if they had captured Paris, only to have Russia capture Prussia! Hindsight is 20/20, though, so it's easy for us to criticize them for it. At least they learned from this, though, and did come to understand the principles of modern warfare, unlike their opposition.

I accept your point about Prussia and that Germany more than any other Nation learnt the principles of modern warfare...but would say that alot of these theories as regarding the use of tanks etc originated in Britain. Britain had put into practice much as regarding the use of tracked vehicles but on far too small a scale and without a complimentary air arm such as the German stukas provided.

 

[Richard III]

I. Look, like I said, I don't think I play favorites that often. I am as willing to criticize Britain's thoughtless violations of neutrality as Germany's. Unlike you, I'm not going to rationalize them with all sorts of "Germany must win" mumbo-jumbo. For the record, there were strategic alternatives as well as moral ones; simply defending the frontier would have been an exceptional strategy, as Rupprecht's performance proved in September '14.

But I'm not going to squabble; it's clear that you beleive in some sort of brutal realpolitik where Germany gets to do what it feels it needs to do to win, regardless of the morale purpose of the fight. I'm not going to change your mind.

But more important:

II.

Originally posted by Shady
Since this was obviously a war that the allies provoked and jumped into (not saying the CP's didn't contribute either), Germany was FORCED to fight.

Please explain this?

I'm intrigued to see how the Allies provoked the war. I don't beleive in "German war guilt," but I certainly am at a loss as to how the Allies provoked the war, or how Germany was forced to fight it. If anything, I think every power shares some of the blame for foolish decision making, with Austria deserving the lion's share of the "stupid, arrogant diplomats of 1914" award.

R.III

 

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by MajorGeneral2
@KoC
I actually can see Petain as being called one of the best WWI leaders, though Foch and Haig are a stretch.
I don't see Haig being on this list because he didn't have the resources to carry everyone else to victory. Of course, if he had been especially intelligent, he could have, but he wasn't.
Regarding your last paragraph. The Germans didn't want to leave so few troops in Prussia, just in case. It wouldn't do much good if they had captured Paris, only to have Russia capture Prussia! Hindsight is 20/20, though, so it's easy for us to criticize them for it. At least they learned from this, though, and did come to understand the principles of modern warfare, unlike their opposition.

The British came up with the idea of modern tank warfare(blitzkreig) in the 20's. The British diviosns in France in 1940 were well equiped and the tanks were on a par with the germans. Now they got trounced so they were doing something wrong but the Germasn did not invent modern warfare.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Originally posted by TheStinger


The British came up with the idea of modern tank warfare(blitzkreig) in the 20's. The British diviosns in France in 1940 were well equiped and the tanks were on a par with the germans. Now they got trounced so they were doing something wrong but the Germasn did not invent modern warfare.

The British armour in France/Belgium suffered from being numerically inferior, but were certainly not "trounced" in consideration of the situation they were in.

Quoting "Rundstedt" from "The Other Side of the Hill by Liddell Hart".

As Leist's panzer group drove into France his flank guards had been relieved in turn by a system of relays - as part of the process of maintaining the momentum of the advance. The infantry corps were backing up his panzer corps, and they came under his orders for a day or two at each stage while they took up defensve positions on the flanks. But, in the later stages, the pace of the panzers became so fast as to leave a dangerous interval behind them. A small British counter-attack force suddenly inserted a wedge into the gap.
Rundstedt told me; "A critical moment in the drive came just as my forces had reached the Channel. It was caused by a British counter-stroke southward from Arras towards Cambrai, on May 21. For a short time it was feared that our armoured divisions would be cut off before the infantry divisions could come up to support them. None of the French counter-attacks carried any serious thread as this one did." (It is remarkable to learn what a jar this gave the Germans and how it nearly upset their drive for it was delivered by a very small force, part of General Martel's 50th Northumbrian Division with the 4th and 7th Battalions Royal Tank Regiment. It is clear that if there had been two British armoured divisions instead of battalions, the whole German plan might have been paralysed.)

Another section relevant to the action at Arras:

"Halder's diary contains a significant entry on the afternoon of the 23rd about the report made by the O.K.H. liaison officer with the Panzer Group headquaters: "17.00: von Gyldenfeldt conveys Kleist's anxiety. Kleist does not feel he can carry out his task while the crisis around Arras continues. Panzer losses up to 50 per cent. I point out to him that the crisis will be overcome within 48 hours."

Britain had sent one, read it again ONE tank brigade to France.


The British Armour performed magnificently in my view, but were far too few in number to make a great enough impact. The French it is true had loads of armour, but they were used very poorly and had alot of technical issues such as a lack of radio communications on all but the commanders tanks.


I quote from Liddell Harts (whose writings are my bible for WW2 and for alot of strategic analysis and if you haven't read him and you are intested in WW2 then you have a treat in store if you go out and make a few purchases! This dude knew most the generals etc before the war and interviewed many after it including big players such as Rundstedt.) "History of the Second World War":

*Forecasting the situation that arose in 1940, it had been urged from 1935 on in "The Times", and other quarters, that Britain's military effort should be concentrated on providing a stronger air force and two to three armoured divisions for a counterstroke against any Germany breakthrough in France, instead of sending an expeditionary force composed of infantry divisions - of which the French had plenty. This principle was accepted by the Cabinet at the end of 1937, but discarded early in 1939 in favour of building an expeditionary force of the familiar pattern. By May 1940, thirteen infantry divisions (including three 'labour' divisions) in all had been sent to France, without a single armoured division, but proved unable to do anything to save the situation.

I point out that Liddell Hart was writing for the Times in 1935, was an advisor to the war ministery in 1937 only to leave in 1938 as he wanted to publically speak out at the slowness of modernisation/expansion of the British military.


Quite simply it would be ignorant in my view to say that the British Armoured forces in France were trounced, but that they performed extremely well and pointed to the foolishness of not opting for a deployment of 2-3 Armoured divisions which may have made a proper impact against a German breakthrough. Furthermore I point out with my quotes that these ideas were being kicked around long before WW2 and so it is clear that in the British establishment modern military thinking was taking place by the likes of Liddell Hart.




Oh well, it sounds like my love affaire with Liddell Hart is well and truely out in the open

 

[MajorGeneral2]

Originally posted by TheStinger


The British came up with the idea of modern tank warfare(blitzkreig) in the 20's. The British diviosns in France in 1940 were well equiped and the tanks were on a par with the germans. Now they got trounced so they were doing something wrong but the Germasn did not invent modern warfare.

What do the '20s and '40s have to do with WWI strategy? WWI could be called either the first modern war, or the last industrial (trench warfare has been obsolete for some time now). It was a combination of all parties who "invented" modern warfare. This war was a crossroads of sorts, but the Germans had a greater understanding of it.

@KOC,
I largely accept your points on tanks. Despite being slow and easy to hit, they still could've been at least somewhat more effective if used in greater numbers. But I doubt they could have won the war for the Allies, at least not before some signifigant design changes.

BTW, It wasn't the British exclusively who developed the tank. There had been ideas for "land battleships" for centuries, and Russia, France, and Germany were all exploring the idea (Russia, I think, was actually at the forefront for a time). Britain just beat them to the punch, so to speak.

 

[Shady]

Originally posted by Richard III
I. Look, like I said, I don't think I play favorites that often. I am as willing to criticize Britain's thoughtless violations of neutrality as Germany's. Unlike you, I'm not going to rationalize them with all sorts of "Germany must win" mumbo-jumbo. For the record, there were strategic alternatives as well as moral ones; simply defending the frontier would have been an exceptional strategy, as Rupprecht's performance proved in September '14.

But I'm not going to squabble; it's clear that you beleive in some sort of brutal realpolitik where Germany gets to do what it feels it needs to do to win, regardless of the morale purpose of the fight. I'm not going to change your mind.

But more important:

II.



Please explain this?

I'm intrigued to see how the Allies provoked the war. I don't beleive in "German war guilt," but I certainly am at a loss as to how the Allies provoked the war, or how Germany was forced to fight it. If anything, I think every power shares some of the blame for foolish decision making, with Austria deserving the lion's share of the "stupid, arrogant diplomats of 1914" award.

R.III

Well I don't disagree with you which is why I said that the CP's (Central Powers) contributed. Universally present is the issue of nationalism and imperialism which is incredible at the time that they were willing to enter the biggest war yet for irrational reasons.

Obviously the biggest factor that speaks for the provocation of the allies is the clear serb-supported assassination of the Archduke F.F. but beyond that, Serbia is really just a weak state that doesn't matter. Austria's dealing with Serbia was a little harsh but it's no less just than what the U.S. is doing to countries connected to terrorism. Mainly it's Russia's mobilization. In that time, if a country mobilized the reversal process would be impossible because the costs would be enormous and demoralizing. So mobilization=imminent war. That's the primary reason Germany jumped to declare war as quickly as possible so as to get an advantage in the conflict ahead. Some theorize that in those times people knew that a new major European war would be imminent. Russia was starting to modernize her army in those years. In 1906 and 1911, Germany didn't feel it had the need yet to strike but if after 1914, the Russians modernized, Germany had no way of winning this future European war.

 

[TheStinger]

KoC- I meant that the British Army got trounced in general, it wasn't meant as a criticsim of the armoured forces. I was trying to poimt out that if the British had followed the ideas of Liddle Hart they would have been more succesful.

I also should have said the tank forces they did have were good, again there obviously wern't enough.

My main point was to try and say that the Germans were not the inventers of modern warfare. Although they were the 1st to use it to any great level of success, although the USSR beat Japan but i'm not sure of the details of those battles

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Originally posted by MajorGeneral2



BTW, It wasn't the British exclusively who developed the tank. There had been ideas for "land battleships" for centuries, and Russia, France, and Germany were all exploring the idea (Russia, I think, was actually at the forefront for a time). Britain just beat them to the punch, so to speak.

If you get a spare $300 or go to a good Universities library which has a military history section you should read "The Tanks" by Liddell Hart, it goes into great depth about the ideas for self-propelled armoured fighting devices and starts with if I remember correctly with the battle-wagons of the Goths


MajorGeneral2 I may be wrong but Stinger had moved onto WW2 strategy etc from WWI as you commented about the Germans that:

At least they learned from this, though, and did come to understand the principles of modern warfare, unlike their oppositio

For my own part I pointed out that in Britain the principles were well know by many and to a great extent inspired there, the fault was that these were not put into practise due to politics and conservative military leaders (a certainly Germany wasn't short of these either!).

 

[MajorGeneral2]

Originally posted by kittenOFchaos

For my own part I pointed out that in Britain the principles were well know by many and to a great extent inspired there, the fault was that these were not put into practise due to politics and conservative military leaders (a certainly Germany wasn't short of these either!).

And that's what it all broils down to, itsn't it? That seems to be the recurrent theme throughout this war, a dichotomous force, with those who attacked blindly (Joffre and most of the French/British fall into this category), and those who preferred to stay on the defensive (this is where Petain stands out).

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Originally posted by MajorGeneral2


And that's what it all broils down to, itsn't it? That seems to be the recurrent theme throughout this war, a dichotomous force, with those who attacked blindly (Joffre and most of the French/British fall into this category), and those who preferred to stay on the defensive (this is where Petain stands out).

Why are you talking about WW1 leaders when you are quoting from me speaking about post WW1 (1930s) politics. Politics which in 1935 saw the removal of a peacenik Labour PM as people in Britain woke up to the need to re-arm.