France’s Planning & Fighting the First Months of WWI - Robert Doughty

Brigadier General Robert Doughty retired in July 2005 after 40 years of service in the U.S. Army. He graduated from the U.S. Military Academy in 1965 and received his PhD from Kansas University in 1979. He served in a variety of assignments in the United States, Europe, and Vietnam, and his awards and decorations include the Distinguished Service Medal, Silver Star, and Combat Infantry Badge. He served as the Head of the Department of History at the U.S. Military Academy from 1985 until 2005.
Doughty makes a point that rarely in military history has a commander or an army made so many mistakes and escaped defeat than in the case of the French and General Joffre prior to and during the opening months of World War I. Doughty highlights the numerous mistakes made by the French military command in planning for the war and by General Joffre in analyzing and confronting the German threat during the first months of the war.
Presented November 7, 2014 as part of the National World War I Museum and United States World War I Centennial Commission 2014 Symposium, "1914: Global War & American Neutrality."
The Symposium was held in association with The Western Front Association East Coast Branch and the World War I Historical Association. Sponsored by Colonel J's, the Neighborhood Tourist Development Fund and Verlag Militaria.
For more information about the National WWI Museum and Memorial visit theworldwar.org

[@alanpennie]

Joffre's victory. At horrible cost he retrieved his own early mistakes. He concentrated, he drove back The Germans. It was a remarkable achievement.

[@williamtell5365]

I can't quite point out why but I find the Battle of the Frontiers to be, along with the closing months, the most interesting part of this war. Of course, the Western Front, Verdun, and the Somme are more emblematic of this war, maybe even Gallipoli. But the Battle of the Frontiers was, I think, even more important in terms of the war's outcome and also more fascinating in that it shows the sharpest, most extreme time where 20th Century Industrial Warfare entered the scene in a stunning bang. So I enjoyed this presentation, thanks for posting.

[@jeffersonwright6249]

I would agree but with the addition that not just the first 100 days but the last 100 days of the war, 4 years later, were equally interesting

[@jeffersonwright6249]

It wasn’t just the French who didn’t get on with the BEF: General French commander of the BEF genuinely believed he didn’t need to coordinate his movements with his French allies until Joffre showed up personally at his headquarters and begged him to coordinate with the French army

[@IanCross-xj2gj]

Thank you, WFA. Good overview of the opening weeks of the 1914 Western Campaign. Joffre emerges as the hero of the 1st battle of the Marne.

[@Digmen1]

I have read a lot on WWI. But I really enjoyed this presentation from a military man.

[@christianfournier6862]

Let’s thank Gen. Doughty for this well researched and well exposed conference. But i’ve been much amused by his imaginative pronunciation of French & Belgian town names!

[@andreblitte1129]

made a French transcription (with additions) of General Doughty's book, The Breaking Point, and I would like to convey it to him. A. Blitte

[@casparcoaster1936]

In a (sick) way, I am grateful (silver lining wise) for covid lockdowns, only now, in my old age, I beginning to understand so much more of the what where how (even why) of ww1, and am very proud, to hear native Americans who know so much about it. Going to check out the museum in KC. My g-father fought in ww1, my father ww2(not combat), both meant so much to what our country is now, good and bad.

[@fringeelements]

Man, I'm learning so much about the Filth Army.

[@Kantorblue]

Lol was just about to comment on this

[@jeffersonwright6249]

General Franchet D’Esperey was nicked-name Desperate Frankie by the BEF. And it was out of respect because they noted his tendency to lead from the front on horse back.

[@MultiZirkon]

This one is really good.

[@rhysnichols8608]

Good video, but I expected this to be more about French doctrine and actual tactical fighting methods, instead it seems largely to be an overview of Joffre

[@rockytoptom]

Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke, commander of western German forces and in charge of executing the Schlieffen Plan in 1914 said, "We are not superior to the French. I will do what I can." He almost did it. Almost. Was so close. Those 5 divisions transferred from the Western to the Eastern Front in the first weeks probably looked pretty good a week after they had been transferred. But oh well. Hindsight's 20/20

[@sliceofheaven3026]

I think one reason for the trench war was the state of air combat in ww1. I wonder if the trenches in ww1 would have stayed as unchanging as they ultimately did if bombers and fighter planes would have been as advanced as they were in ww2. The other reason might have been that the tanks at the time werent that reliable yet so using those in order to make breach attempts wasnt really as viable as it was in ww2 to support and spearhead attacking troops. I also think that too many of the generals of ww1 were probably cavalry type generals who believed that charging at enemy was the best way to victory. Unfortunately for them the age of horse based cavalry had passed with the invention of machine guns which could mow down horses and men far faster than those could charge towards the enemy.

[@kenzeier2943]

This lecturer is good

[@lucius1976]

3:10 the Allies in WW1 actually never drove into Germany during combat apart from the French early in war into parts of Alsace-Lorraine

[@TheDeadThatLive]

And the Russians into East Prussia.

[@PMMagro]

True but only because Germany asked for an armistice, basically surrendering in late 1918.

[@dondajulah4168]

I would imagine a good chunk of those early war casualties were POW’s taken as Germany advanced into France.

[@forresttravison406]

There is a French phrase about 'Nibbling' vs 'Piercing' attacks (bite and hold vs breakthrough I think), can someone tell me the French phrase for this concept?

[@Bufoferrata]

grinotage

[@petertorvik8413]

grignotage is nibbling in French

[@edoyer]

Would the battle of the Marne have happened if Joffre have had done a better job at the battle of the frontier ?

[@haroldofcardboard]

i like watching lectures at home because i can smoke weed drink sodas and eat tons of candy chill w my dog :)

[@3vimages471]

The BEF was comparatively very small, but was by far the best trained and most effective army in the World in 1914.

[@hazzardalsohazzard2624]

The British Army has the luxury of engaging the enemy on their terms most of the time. The British Empire didn't only fight on the Western Front. It had a versatile army ready to deal with a variety of threats. It wasn't specialised to deal with large European Wars. The British Army almost always fights on foreign ground. This is a function of Britain being an Island Nation.

[@gandydancer9710]

Effective at what?

[@groovy_bear]

Would you care to elaborate and give sources about how that training meant much greater effectiveness ? This is a rhetorical question. The answer is there are none. The BEF had the same problems as the French and German armies in terms of artillery-infantry coordination, which was the key tactical aspect of the battle of the frontiers (and later on). On both sides, 75% of deaths in the early weeks of 1914 were due to artillery. Only a small proportion of casualties were due to rifle shots, so having the best trained riflemen in the world did not mean any significant advantage on the battlefield. The main advantage procured by a professional army was to pretty much ensure an orderly retreat. Yet the French army retreat and the German pursuit were also performed in an orderly fashion, so not so much of a difference in practice on that matter too. The French had a professional army while Prussia had conscripts in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870. The French were outnumbered not even 2 to 1, but their professional army did not make much of a difference. So enough with this BEF myth/nonsense. The BEF was rather anecdotal in the war on the western front in 1914 (and the most part of 1915). The vast majority of the fighting happened between France and Germany.

[@rhysnichols8608]

The BEF were very good riflemen and perhaps more thoroughly drilled than their German conscript enemies or French reservist allies, but they were outgunned and outnumber by the Germans and some of the more elite and professional German units (and French and Russian for that matter) were at a similar level of professionalism. The British did play a very important role in plugging the gap at the Marne and for a time their superior tactical ability drove off German reservists, but the BEF was also crippled as a fighting force within weeks due to artillery damage and German numbers. I think there is an argument to made however that without the British army in august and September 1914 the French may not have held.

[@cpj93070]

@@groovy_bear Britain didn't need its army the Royal Navy could dictate to any country in the world its plans even to the United States the power of its empire.

[@andrewdolokhov5408]

See how smart the French were versus the Germans: They ruled out going into Belgium first because it would alienate Britain.

[@nirfz]

They just ruled out to be first to go into Belgium (if you follow the lecture they went on Belgian territory, just waited for the germans to be first). And together with Britain the French violated the neutrality of Greece... But there was nobody left to be angry about it.(who cared or wasn't already at war with them ;-) )

[@MrKmanthie]

The French (and British, waiting on the sidelines) were waiting for the Germans to violate Belgian neutrality first so as to make them (the Germans) be the "bad guys" by crossing through a neutral country (Belgium) which had no military alliances; not with Germany, nor France, nor England, etc. hence the term "neutral". This was the smart thing to do because if a country other than Germany molested Belgium's neutrality then that country would be the pariah for having violated that neutrality. So, France was very wise in waiting for Germany to cross through Belgium, on their march to invade northern France. This way it was Germany who went through Belgium for belligerent purposes. After this was done and the Germans were using Belgium as a means of getting to France, then, of course, France had a right to go there as a means of self-defense. Plus, unlike Germany, who burned & looted & murdered many Belgians on their march towards France, the French had no intention of inflicting any of the "atrocities" that the Germans committed. France only had in mind the defense of their country. This was understood by King Albert of Belgium and accepted as a legitimate means of trying to keep the Germans at bay.

[@shivmalik9405]

The French, unlike the Germans, could afford to wait as they had Russia as an ally

[@hazzardalsohazzard2624]

@@MrKmanthie I think violating neutrality was more about managing public opinion. Both Britain and France are democracies. In the UK the army is almost entirely subservient to the whims of the government, aside from the secret agreements with France. France AFAIK always had a military that could launch a coup and everyone knew it. The military scared the civilian government a lot of the time. Especially in the Interwar period with Conservative Catholic soldiers, such as DeGaulle compared to the more Secular Socialist and Liberal Government.

[@Lindsey-jr4xr]

i wouldnt call that smart, id call it a cowardly policy that indicates France should have lost and Britain should have let them lose for failing to meet the Germs as equals... instead France played the part of a pansyesque victim. And now we know Britain was a gay guy's simpy bpyfriend.

[@mikemb123]

This was the beginning of Western Civilization committing suicide.

[@mattsmiddy40]

Yeah, that was the quick suicide, now with immigration we’ve got the slow suicide.

[@dogetaxes8893]

Maybe, perhaps the passing of the torch to America. I personally don’t think America is going anywhere soon.

[@bigmojito1765]

?????

[@TimeWarp2000]

Meh. Depends on how far you want to think about. I’m sure this is a shallow statement without context.

[@rhysnichols8608]

@@dogetaxes8893 What an absolutely ridiculous comment. America is a disaster

[@nedhunter2671]

Is he saying "filth army" on purpose?

[@PaulfromChicago]

Funny that the French gave up any thought of defense after the Brits informally agreed to join the Franco-Russian alliance.

[@MrBandholm]

Britain had nothing to do with the French being offensive in doktrin... The British army was tiny, and seen more as a reserve by many French generals.

[@Skanzool]

Informally joining the Franco-Russian alliance? No, Britain agreed to defend Belgian neutrality and nothing more. In fact Britain had no real army. When war broke out they could only send a patchwork force known as the British Expeditionary Force and that force was small and not very dependable.

[@wuffothewonderdog]

Have you any documentation that the British Expeditionary Force was not very dependable? The British army was the only one of the initial major powers' armies not to succomb to mutinies.

[@TheAiurica]

Depend on how you define "dependable". - Being a well trained professional force, it would accomplish every mission gave to it. They surely knew their business. - Being so small, it was a drop in a bucket. Considering the sheer scale of fighting even in those early days of the war, it was too small to make any significand difference. There was not much to expect from such a tiny force. :)

[@alganhar1]

@@Skanzool Not very dependable? Small, yes, but not very dependable? Afraid you are wrong there. Britain did not follow the Continental Army model of vast conscript armies, instead relying on a small professional army. Britains power was in her Navy, not the Army. The BEF was dependable, it's problem was that it was SMALL. Its soldiers however were, man for man, probably the best trained soldiers in the world in 1914. The average length of service for a British Soldier fighting at Mons was 10 years, in an army that had utterly modernised its tactical and operational doctrines, as well as its organisation and training in the years prior to the war. The size of the BEF was its Achilles heel, but everyone KNEW that at the time, everyone KNEW it would take Britain time to mobilse its forces to put a Continental style Citizens Army into the field. In the meantime, Britain leveraged its TRUE Power, the Royal Navy, and its Treasury. By the Winter of 1915 most of that superbly trained, but tiny force of Professionals were dead or permanently out of action....

[@davidchardon1303]

Were the French really the spearhead of the allied offensive ? On the Western Front, the 1 November 1918 : French Army : - 102 infantry divisions, 6 cavalry divisions - 2,659,084 men , 630,440 horses and 80,000 trucks. - 5,578 heavy guns and 1,626 trench guns - 50,700 chauchats and 30,664 heavy MG's - 1,272 tanks - 3,609 planes British Army : - 60 infantry divisions and 3 cavalry divisions - 1,721,890 men, 388,00 horses and 19,000 trucks. - 2,197 heavy guns and 2,570 trench guns - 20,000 lewis and 4,632 heavy MG's - 611 tanks - 1,678 planes (!!!) American Army : - 31 infantry divisions and no cavalry division - 1,821,449 men and 151,250 horses - 746 trench guns and 406 heavy guns - 18,465 light MG's (most of them being chauchat CSRG 1918 and the rest being BAR's) and 6,239 heavy MG's - 91 tanks (lol) - 2,032 planes

[@gandydancer9710]

You posted the same post on a different video. Again, look at the casualties in the Wikipedia article on the Hundred Days Campaign. The French did about four times as much as the Americans and, iirc, about 25% more than the Brits.

[@BingoFrogstrangler]

You should try reading a book regarding this time in history.

[@jimmihotdog3469]

Who attacked who first eh?

[@gandydancer9710]

In Israel vs Egypt 1967?

[@albertomalnati8473]

Responsability of war lies in to the deep of European history...judge it, with nowadays. Fell could make us iniquos in our evaluation...I think this lecture, give some good inputs, but in it's conclusion risk to be a bit partial...Britain use the Belgium invasion, to finish up and stopping with German challenge to her power..France, for shure has a lot to revenge after Franco/ prussian war ( of which Bismark was the supreme architect)..but Germany as it's own responsability in the will of destroy once more the French..they plan it' s dated 1905...Italy has fought three wars against Austro hungarian empire to reach it' s unity..she was bond by alliance thanks to Bismarck..but still the Italian consider the Austrian their foe..and the austrian military command feel the same in reverse...Russian, really won't the war, but they were forced to do it because of their pretention to be the goodfather

[@albertomalnati8473]

Of Slavian people...and so on ..long and twisted story

[@albertomalnati8473]

And again...the military commands had the maximum responsability to force government to war..because of the complex mechanism of mobilitation..who' s arrive first to deploy the whole huge army gas the possibility to win the war...one name to blame for the ww1..Conrad, among the military chiefs, one of the bigger responsible of the war.

[@herrpez]

Kinda rude to call them the filth army.

[@mrblues53]

/