Max Hastings - "Western Front Military Commanders in World War I: Myth and Reality"

[@tonykeith76]

Every country need a Max Hastings.....

[@vicmclaglen1631]

44:02 Lord Max is astounded by the sudden peerage, especially after being introduced as Mr. Hastings at the outset. Quite the reversal.

[@piggymalone1]

The volume was far too low, please correct that for next time.

[@kevinbyrne4538]

32:07 -- Certainly battles before the First World War were bloody. The objections to the battles of the First World War are (1) that often the enormous bloodshed achieved almost nothing, and (2) that the generals repeatedly made massed frontal assaults that failed repeatedly -- they wasted lives on tactics that had already been proven to be futile. If 250,000 men had died during the first battle of the Marne and the Western Allies had then proceeded to march into Germany, people would have said the that battle was horrific but that the result justified the sacrifice. Instead, repeatedly, huge numbers of men died and achieved almost nothing -- and everyone involved knew beforehand that it was unlikely to achieve anything.

[@lw3646]

I think Hastings is trying to stress that the reality the generals had on the Western Front was that the weaponry available plus the dug in nature of the enemy meant that the situation heavily favoured the defender over the attacker. It was nearly impossible for a quick breakthrough, you could bombard them beforehand to try and break up the barbed wire but the bombardment gave them advanced warning an attack was coming. So any form of attack across no man's land would be highly costly but the generals were under direct political pressure to attack and win back lost territory. In the West it was essentially a war of attrition. The most effective thing the Brits probably did through the war was the blockade. That was possible because of a big strategic advantage in the size of the British navy, on the Western front though it was equally matched.

[@williamchamberlain2263]

22:10 false 1/ manoeuvre of deception was possible- show the enemy a buildup in one place, but put a longer, slower buildup in elsewhere 2/ manoeuvre of logistics was possible to set up resources and reserves to move down the trunk railways that both sides possessed and built up to be ready to turn a small action into a push 3/ armoured cars had been used before and agricultural tractors were already in use, and the British naval detachment used armoured cars and truck-mounted cannon in 1914-15, so tanks could have been produced and fielded in 1916 if the old guard just let go of horse cavalry being useful until the trenches were fully bypassed 4/ the Canadian tactic of bite-and-hold was fully effective with just artillery, machine guns, and infantry and could have been used from 1915 to grab trenches back to the field artillery line if the old guard learned how battlefield logistics really _functioned_ on a minute-by-minute basis during an attack Basically - ask a bunch of the privates, corporals, sergeants, lieutenants, and captains about their direct experiences and how it was different from previous wars, with sergeants and captains asking the questions questions and the generals in a separate room listening in by phone - to bypass the information filters inherent in the armies' rank reporting process.

[@johnniebee4328]

Fix the sound can't hear a thing

[@castlerock58]

The problem was that the politicians started the war and failed to negotiate an end to it. The generals had to come up with new tactics to deal with the new technology that made tactics developed over centuries suicidal. German generals and admirals were fatally hopeless at strategy and came up with strategies that brought the British empire and US into the war. The technology would have allowed them to have allowed France and Russia to attack them. That would have allowed German diplomats a good chance of keeping the British and US out. This would have them allowed Germany to support its ally and weaken Russia. If they could have avoided attacking Belgium and made it clear to Britain that they had limited war aims that were to deal with the Russian threat, they had a good chance of keeping Britain out. They could have asked Britain to mediate. Defending the German border against France would have been better than defending the line they ended up defending and they would not have been the aggressors. Entente generals did not make strategic blunders that were as fatal to their side and developed new tactics by learning what worked and what didn't. They were given a near impossible task by politicians who made made catastrophic blunders. Politicians could have avoided the war and could have found a diplomatic way out once it started. They chose not to and the generals had to deal with it.

[@lw3646]

Yes, the weaponry was new and terrible but communicatione still laged behind, at the outbreak soliders were still using pigeons and runners to take messages back and forth like they did in medival times. Time was lost so breakthroughs couldn't be easily exploited before the enemy regrouped and recovered. Nobody has really been able to explain how they'd have achieved a quick victory with few casualties in 1914. Rifles had become much quicker to reload with better range, never mind artillery and machine guns, soliders advancing over open ground without cover were just cut down. The only way to protect soliders out in the open was to dig trenches which then just leads to a war of attrition.

[@gullybull5568]

Maybe ATTRITION was and IS the POINT. SACRIFICE. for. Ziom. 😂❤

[@kevinbyrne4538]

22:08 -- In reply to Hastings' argument that there was no alternative to the tactics used, I would point out that as early as 1915, the Germans were developing what would become the Stormtroopers (Stosstruppen). The French were also developing infiltration tactics in 1915, and in 1916, during the Brusilov offensive on the eastern front, the Russians were using infiltration tactics. Likewise, combined arms warfare -- concentrated infantry and artillery attacks with close air support -- was not beyond the means of the First World War. There wasn't any need to develop new technology -- just a need to use what was available more effectively.

[@matth4352]

Except, of course, that both France & Germany had massive standing armies with the infrastructure & command to go with it, we did not, we had to build it all from scratch with a citizens army whilst fighting the war - akin to redesigning and rebuilding an engine whilst it's running! The myth that the British were incompetent or negligent is simply that, a myth. What we did in 1914-18 is nothing short of a miracle - and, yes, it was led by Sir Douglas Haig, despite Lloyd-George who as a political pacifist, became an impediment to progress, except where he thought he could benefit personally. It's a fascinating period of our history, but rife with myths which are not borne out by the facts. Technology was key to the innovations which pulled us out of the jaws of defeat, the British learning & innovation curve from 1915 to 1918 is staggering & warrants close study.

[@leew1598]

The weaponry was new and terrible but communications still lagged behind, at the outbreak soldiers were still using pigeons and runners to take messages back and forth like they did in medieval times. Time was lost so breakthroughs couldn't be easily exploited before the enemy regrouped and recovered. Nobody has really been able to explain how they'd have achieved a quick victory with few casualties in 1914. Rifles had become much quicker to reload with better range, never mind artillery and machine guns, soldiers advancing over open ground without cover were just cut down. The only way to protect soldiers out in the open was to dig trenches which then just leads to a war of attrition.

[@martinshillitoe4735]

@@matth4352 an excellent reply

[@SimonMr7]

Excellent lecture. Maybe the mystery of why the WWI generals were so reviled after the war had something to do with revolution being somewhat in the air throughout the West in the early 20th century.

[@lw3646]

In the 60s it was the 50th anniversy of WWI, new books came out, the old social order was under attack, anti establishment politics were popular and WWI became an easy target, lions lead by donkeys, people wanted to believe it.

[@railtonfeagus8539]

So, judging from 13:35, Sir Max not only takes his wife on battlefield tours but gives her a reading list in advance as her homework! I want to be married to Sir Max!

[@MrDaiseymay]

What surprises me greatly, is his failure to criticise, Field Marshall Douglas Haig. Head of the British Army. I read a brief excerpt from his 1925 auto biography, in which he wrote, I paraphrase, ''The invention of the Tank, and the Aeroplane, were great additions to our attacks, but, they will never replace a man on a Horse''. A close friend and columnist of the 'Telegraph'' (I think) begged him not to include that paragraph. Haig ignored him, and so, was rightly ridiculed a great deal. I also read, that Haig lacked self confidence, with his battle plans, and frequently prayed to God, for victory. This is made clear in his many letter's to his wife.

[@seanmoran2743]

Horace Smith Dorien would have made a better commander It’s interesting that Max has not properly separated the first wave of volunteers 2million with those that were conscripted! Deadly ideologies were unleashed by that idiocy that are with us today The real culprits were the politicians inc Churchill

[@lw3646]

Ironically today the tank is starting to look vulnerable, the war in Ukraine has shown how easily they can be taken out by relatively light anti tank weapons infantry can fire.

[@johnmilner6419]

from 5:35 to 5:45, All returning veterans received a free suit, courtesy of HMG.

[@TheF7Pawn]

Outstanding. Hastings at his iconoclastic best.

[@uameamalositagatanofoalii7226]

Yes, very sexy

[@seanmoran2743]

Pity he didn’t fight himself he might have a different view The Kaiser was not Hitler either nor was the threat the same

[@grumpyoldman8661]

Sir Max at his challenging best. I'm just reading his WW2 history, "All Hell Let Loose"; absorbing. (Brighton. UK)

[@kevinbyrne4538]

37:02 -- Hastings says that during the Second World War, Western commanders had fewer casualties because the Soviets fought the bulk of the German army and therefore suffered the bulk of the losses. True, but even the Soviets suffered the bulk of their losses during the initial invasion of the Soviet Union. Those losses were due to surprise and incompetent leadership -- and were largely due to the result of mass surrenders, rather than battlefield deaths. Once the Soviets found some competent generals who had learned how to deal with the Germans -- men like Zhukov -- the huge losses and mass surrenders largely ceased. And although battles might still be bloody, as at Stalingrad, they also resulted in Soviet victories. Lives were sacrificed, but not wasted (as so often happened in the First World War). Every general in every era can't forget that he has finite resources of men and materiel. If he fails to use those resources effectively -- if he squanders them -- he loses the war.

[@LTrotsky21stCentury]

Incorrect Kevin. The figure of 27 million casualties refers to both *civilian and military losses* of the Soviet Union, not just military deaths. I truly wish people who endeavored to make comments to videos like this had a modicum of education on the subject. The *entire* Soviet military establishment on June 22, 1941 was a bit over 5 million troops. "The bulk" of casualties, again both civilian and military, were spread throughout the conflict; of the civilian losses, most were suffered in 1942 to mid-1944, when the Nazis had spun up the death factories at Sobibor and elsewhere.

[@Baskerville22]

Stalin executing 30,000 Army officers in the 1930s didn't help

[@edward6902]

Today (July 1st) is Memorial Day in Newfoundland The tiny population of that rich Dominion immediately raised a Regiment once war was declared, and had them across the Atlantic post haste. They were sent to Suvla Bay. They were also at Beaumont Hamel near the Somme River for the start of the big push, where they got wiped out for marching onto the wrong ground at the wrong time. More fortunate formations, scheduled to go over the top later that morning, were spared because command realized that sending brave men into grinding hellfire looked like a very bad tactic Douglas Haig made a point of being in St. John's when The War Memorial on Water Street was unveiled exactly eight years later

[@castlerock58]

The real problem with WW I is that the dying was all in vain in a war that should never have been fought. We were fighting in support of Serbian state-sponsored terrorism. Russia and France were wrong to back Serbia after Serbian military intelligence orchestrated the assassination of archduke Ferdinand. They should have used diplomacy to put pressure on Austria-Hungary to limit its response. Germany supported a limited and prompt response. Austria-Hungary and some elements in Germany deceived the Kaiser on how far they were planning to go. If Russia had not taken away the possibility of diplomacy, it is possible that a diplomatic solution could have been found. The Germany we were fighting in WW I was not a s evil as Nazi Germany. A war to stop an evil and aggressive Hitler is different from a bloody war that happened from diplomatic and strategic blunders on both sides. Failure to negotiate an early end to WW I led to both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. That means that the deaths of many of our soldiers were worse than useless. They were dying to make the world worse. If politicians had avoided the war or called it of in 1916. We could have avoided both Nazism and Communism. WW I is more tragic than WW II because it was a foolish war of choice.

[@lw3646]

1918 is actually the last time the British Army played a critical role in winning a series of battles that ended a global conflict.

[@TheDavidlloydjones]

Correct -- if you don't take the years of the War of the 20th Century as being, say, 1914~45, or perhaps 1908~92. It's hard to see 1918 or 1919 as the end of even the European segment of the Great World War, isn't it?

[@terrysmith9362]

what utter bollocks

[@lawrencewright2816]

2 out of the 5 Normandy beaches. The channel coast & ports. Stop talking crap.

[@lw3646]

@@terrysmith9362 in 1918, the French army was spent, The US only had limited divisions in the field. It was british forces who captured Jerusalem, Baghdad and knocked the Ottomams out the war. The British played a leading role in defeating the German army in 1918. The blockade by the Royal navy was also very effective by 1918.

[@terrysmith9362]

@@lw3646 On the same premise the USA did not win the war on its own, only in conjunction with its alliesu

[@tim71pos]

I usually listen to KZbin videos when I am on the treadmill. Even with the volume turned up to max I can't hear this one. I don't have a problem with other videos. The gain is not high enough on this recording.

[@MrRobertbyers]

Our Canadian general was above most others. however his ability came from books.

[@kentamitchell]

After the war, Lloyd George stated that had the war continued into 1919, he would have named Currie as Commander of the BEF, and Monash as his Chief of Staff.

[@bobmcrae5751]

True, and if Lloyd George had done that there would have been a mutiny in the British high command.

[@davidaustrian9455]

@@kentamitchell the germans studied the tactics of Monash after the war and came up with the blitzkrieg. The British colonies saved English From defeat in WW1. That includes the USA.

[@terrysmith9362]

the last sentencr is bollocks

[@anthonyeaton5153]

​​@@davidaustrian9455the war would have been won without Australia but not without Britain. Think about it.

[@onesmoothstone5680]

TURN UP THE VOLUME

[@davidworsley7969]

MAKES NO DIFFERENCE

[@99IronDuke]

Agree with everything he says. Still don't think Great Britain should have joined WWI in the first place.

[@lw3646]

If Britain hadn't then France would have been defeated, Belgium probably annexed by Germany or something, the Ottoman empire would probably have gone on. Arguably you wouldn't have had the rise of fascism in the 1920s but many of the democracies which emerged would never have appeared when they did and the right to self determination would not have emerged for so many Eastern Europeans.

[@peterspelina7520]

The presenter's intend to challenge a simplified view of WWI general stereotype is admirable however I can not agree with providing excuses on a basis of "tactics" of the time. Casualties often caused by repetitive and futile attacks of men against machine guns with a hope that "they will run out of ammunition before we run out of men" can possibly be justifiable as a short time tactical engagement in the absence of other means, but absolutely idiotic in the way they were constantly applied in WWI. However there is something to agree with him and that is that WWI generals were not too different (in their incompetence) to generals of previous or following wars).

[@leew1598]

As he pointed out though battles of a similar attrition nature took place at place like Stalingrad in WWII, not because the generals wanted that but because neither side could afford to retreat. From 1914-17 the technology suited the defender but the allied generals were under great political pressure to go on the offensive. Also the bloodiest year of the war for the allies was actually 1918 even when there was much more movement on the battle lines and greater use of tanks. By 1914 it was near impossible to advance over open ground easily without being cut to pieces, rifles had become much quicker to reload with greater range, so the idea that you can charge 30 meters across a field and get the enemy before they'd reloaded no longer worked. That's not to even mention barbed wire, machine guns and artillery. The only safe thing to do was to dig down into the earth and make trenches. To attack though the soldiers sooner or later had to leave those trenches.

[@gordonclarkson2672]

Absolutely spot on. The old adage that the definition of insanity is constantly repeating the same action and expecting a different outcome should have been uppermost in their minds. The generals would also have been wise to remember the military axiom about not reinforcing failure.

[@matth4352]

To call a "stalemate" idiotic & criticise those left to deal with it is bad enough, but to do so without pointing out the alternatives (were there any?) is most definitely repeating myth & mistake all in one package! It's akin to criticising doctors for not using penicillin to treat wounds before it was discovered by suggesting they should have done so because all the ingredients were there! Hindsight is not a valuable analytical tool. The simple facts remains that in 1914 the overwhelming power of industrialised weaponry resulted in a subterranean stalemate on the western front. It became apparent to me years ago that the WF was not the decisive front of WW1, that was at sea, but it was the struggle that the British nation could see in front of it & the casualties ensured is effects were felt at home. The British did not see the effects of the naval blockade upon Germany yet that alone is primarily responsible for winning the first world war. The innovation of 'combined arms warfare' on land really only helped the break the stalemate on the WF. The war was won at sea - & for those who think the US soldiers on the WF won the First World War, simply consider how they got to the western front, they didn't fly over from America! The lessons are as important today as ever, as UK steps from a parochial Euro outlook to a global one, it remains the sea which surrounds us & which connects us, not the land. We have to remember that we were & still are a maritime nation, not a continental nation. We must be careful not to believe the myth that Tommy Atkins won the war, brave & steadfast though he was in holding onto various bits of land around the globe, it was Jolly Jack Tar on the ocean deep who ensured that Britain prevailed.

[@ojthesimpson35]

why is it that older people feel like they must make a statement at historians instead of asking a question? vanity? jealousy ? I don't know why but it happens in every historical speaking event I've watched or infact been too.

[@pinosavac]

Peter Jex I though that it is characteristically for my own country, but it seems that it is wider phenomena :D My own experience confirm that it happen at most public lectures, book or research presentations.

[@danjohnston9037]

Peter Jex It is not just historical lectures but other venues also I think basically the statement makers are "hijacking" the forum since they cannot get an audience of their own by any other method, what on the net are called trolls

[@nimium1955]

+Peter Jex consider timidity. sometimes people overcorrect their reluctance to get up and speak.

[@danjohnston9037]

+nimium1955 I applaud your wanting to take the best interpretation of their actions, but sorry to say, my experience is the opposite, they seem far from timid, more self righteous almost, in their desire to interject irrelevant data

[@robsan52]

Peter Jex and 90% of the time it's men. Tocqueville had a too true comment (which I've forgotten) made about American men and it was true then and still true today.

[@user-qm7nw7vd5s]

Had Great Britain and the U.S. stayed out of that sorry mess, there would have been a flowering of youth, on both sides of the Atlantic, and no mass murdering communist revolution, no Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. No killings fields. No man made famines. Indeed, there would have been no World War, not even one!

[@davemehelas5053]

Great perspective. Read Max’s Vietnam-An Epic Tragedy

[@davidanthony4845]

Re Haig's funeral; could people have attended to make sure that he was dead ? ( Don't forget the old show-business saying - ' Give the public what it wants and it will turn out.' )

[@Metadelb13]

Low audio quality.

[@alaskanchristian4881]

55:50 Question the answer Max gave a great answer but in the end , the Treaty meant nothing, because it was not enforced, if you are not willing to back the peice of paper up, then it means nothing and has no weight

[@kentamitchell]

i before e except after c. A weird and ancient rule.

[@paulwolf7562]

I would have loved to have heard him. Unfortunately, nowadays he would probably be banned as being too "woke"..?

[@lw3646]

What?

[@timmcdonald5335]

Yes Haig faced challenges but fair crack of the whip the guy did not learn from his terrible mistakes. Don't defend him. Why would you continue the Somme after the first day. No let's throw some Australians to the fodder and with no strategy. John Monash demonstrated in his tactics at Hamel that there were things you could do without tanks. It just needed some planning, imagination and intelligence, something Haig lacked. That is why people in later years became critical of him, because of the facts.

[@seanmoran2743]

The Somme was more about political support for France than military reasons

[@johnnydavis5896]

Rawlings and Haig are very different stories - he is trying to defend him by throwing him in with other names. What the public though at this point or the other does nothing to prove the competence or incompetence of any general.

[@johnmilner6419]

You can't defend Liberty by supporting the Constitution!

[@kerednilon4276]

First question, straight from the trenches of the nearby dormitory. Head afluff with recent sleep. Shirt, a mockery of the subject matter. The impetuousness of youth descends like chlorine gas upon the lowest trench.

[@davemehelas5053]

To that I’ll add read his Vietnam-An Epic Tragedy for complete history and a first hand account.

[@kevinbyrne4538]

The Western commanders were a rather sorry bunch. Among German generals, Moltke botched the execution of the Schlieffen plan during the first battle of the Marne. His replacement, Falkenhayn, engaged in a bloody battle of attrition at Verdun, which achieved nothing. French general Nivelle wasted more lives at Chemin des Dames, sparking a mutiny by the French army. British general French was relieved of command after the battle of Loos. German generals Hindenburg and Ludendorff launched the critical Spring Offensive while about one million German soldiers occupied eastern Europe ; and when the offensive began to succeed, it became apparent that no provision had been made for sustaining the offensive logistically.

[@elrjames7799]

A bunch of willing and thoroughly decent chaps punishing the evil nascent Nazi Hun for slapping Belgium. Haig was an inept military commander and social misfit (compare his record to that of Smith-Dorrien exemplified in the retreat from Mons). Commercial success as an historical author and broadcaster doesn't qualify Max.Hastings to seemingly disregard the writings of Sassoon ('Do you remember the dark months you manned the sector at Mametz) and the other 'War poets' as mistaken.

[@anthonyeaton5153]

War poets had no more insight in WW1 than any other person. They were making money while writing their doggeral. A mere cypher the lot if them.

[@skiteufr]

"Military commanders of the western front..." and as always with the British and Max Hastings, they only speak about the British. No mention of the French who fought far more during the whole war, lost more men and covered 75% of the western front... The British, even when providing less forces than others, always think victory is only achieved by them...

[@TheDavidlloydjones]

"In 1914 Britain a century had passed since the last one," he says in his plummy accent. Both the war against the Boers, and the vast sweep of empire building, an act of death-dealing unprecedented since perhaps Atilla, go ignored...

[@lw3646]

The boer war was more of a gureilla campaign and rebellion, the crimea war would have been a better example where there was a conflict between great powers in Europe.

[@TheDavidlloydjones]

@@lw3646 "Guerilla"? "Crimean"? The Crimean war was certainly a pretty direct war between Russian and British Empires. The Boers fought with the hit and run techniques typical of guerillas, but it was a vicious war of imperialist aggression by Britain against a perfectly viable independent and civilized Transvaal state. The Boers were never defeated militarily. They fought honourably and effectively, then surrendered only because 30,000 of their wives and children had died of disease in the British concentration camps. This was a war crime unmatched until Hitler's and Eichmann's time, a lawless cruelty worse than anything even claimed to have been perpetrated by Ghengis Khan. FWIW, the English-language press of the world has a tendency to blame Apartheid on the Afrikaaners. While it is fair to say that Henrik Verwoerd was a fascist on the Himmler model and Daniel Malan was a nasty piece of work, the groundwork for the post-1948 system of state-enforced racial oppression was laid by the oh-so-social Jan Smuts and the English-speaking labour unions as a way of protecting high paying white jobs in the mines and industry. Their free-market handling of the prosperity brought by WWII caused the immiseration and class warfare which made the segregationist police state seem credible. Now then, see if you can work on your spelling, OK, @LW? 😎

[@spm36]

@@TheDavidlloydjones oh do be quiet you narcissistic twxt

[@TheDavidlloydjones]

@@spm36 I assume the word you're looking for is "twit." Correct? 🤣😂😁🤦‍♀️

[@seanmoran2743]

What an ignorant statement

[@corrocot1]

FIX THE SOUND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@ralphtaylor3796]

if max is the author of a new life, he needs too finish posting on it.

[@seanmoran2743]

The Great War for Civilisation I didn’t believe in it then and I believe in it less so now JRR Tolkien circa 1960s

[@johnnydavis5896]

Haig held his own men in contempt and failed to learn and adapt. Its nonsense to defend him. Almost all the strategic level commands in WW1 were bad due to the politics impacting the armies. Below that level both Germany and England had a lot of good commanders.

[@HotPinkst17]

I guess since Mr Hastings is old and rather conservative, we're supposed to forgive him for assuming that just because Victorian culture was common and popular among officers (the men and everyone else for a time) that it's deficiencies, no matter how blind and bloody, were somehow especially justified.

[@TheGorganoth]

alimiel "It's not that I'm trying to make these people seem sympathetic human beings, I'm trying to explain where they were and the difficulties they faced." Also curious to speak of Victorian culture having blind and bloody deficiencies, when basically every other culture at the time seemed to have more of these.

[@HotPinkst17]

TheGorganoth Taking so long to get up the learning curve of rifled weaponry earns the Victorians the title of most blind and bloody culture of its day. The Victorian sense of superiority caused them to think that whatever they did to other cultures was better than what they could do for themselves. Victorian blind/bloodiness is most keenly revealed when they militarily confronted their own. It is extremely eurocentric and not at all easy to demonstrate that the Victorians were even in contention for consideration for inclusion on the list of the most enlightened and peaceful societies.

[@stevecochrane3491]

+alimiel Considering the amount of civil war that happened in every country that was once a British colony and the degeneration that happened in them after they left. You can say with confidence that the British were superior in many respects.

[@TheDavidlloydjones]

Steve, You assume that the violence today is not the legacy of the British yesterday. The fact is that in India, China, Uganda, and Ghana, at minimum, the English made war against cultures every bit their equals if not their superiors in civility, law, and culture. The Brits, of course, "........had got The Maxim gun, and they had not." -dlj.

[@ComedySceenwriter]

What were they then?? Tell us!! You have no facts to support your arguements.

[@NuncNuncNuncNunc]

Not a very convincing argument in defense of the British generals. Hastings relies on the soldier poets writing mostly after the war as the voice against the generals as opposed to letters of soldiers written during the war which I think would provide a contemporaneous view and better address the question of whether what many now consider useless slaughter was then a wideheld opinion or as Hastings suggests, it was just war like any other. Sure military censors might influence what was expressed, but it would be a bit more honest than officer accounts of how their men responded to them in person and recorded by the officer themself. Honors bestowed on officers would also be granted by their peers so not necessarily an unbiased measure of the general mood, although the funeral crowd for Haig is worthy to note. Hastings' talk is a bit general and does not address whether the critisms of strategy and slowness to adapt are warranted. Is there a difference in British vs American perception of the British generals? Coming from an American perspective, there seems to be in both wars a tinge of "the British can't quite get the job done without a little American know-how and spirit.

[@gordonclarkson2672]

Soldiers' letters home were so heavily censored as to be almost useless as social documents. The same must be said of interviews in local newspapers with soldiers on leave. My Great-Uncle was the subject of one and his quoted words could have been lifted from any Government propaganda outlet. He was mortally wounded shortly after returning to the Front.

[@lw3646]

I think his point was the attacks they get over their tactics often applies to nearly all generals in history, expect maybe Napolean or something. Tactics did evolve over the war, generals did learn, the use of steel helmets, camouflage, the use of the convoy system, anti air guns, tanks, air level reconisance, mobilising the war industry. In 1914 the fighting was ferocious and appalling but open, armies manovered across battlefields. In trench warfare though it just becomes incredibly difficult to break out from it. The artillery meant to destroy the enemy defences cratered the landscape to the point it became almost impossible, full of mud and water. Even more recently wars can still be quire static. We all know about the 1991 gulf war, great tactics and so on there, but the Iran-Iraq war 1980-88 was mostly trench warfare, even the current war in Ukraine looks like its becoming a war of attrition.

[@seanmoran2743]

In 1914, the Public Schools Officers' Training Corps annual camp was held at Tidworth Pennings, near Salisbury Plain. Lord Kitchener was to review the cadets, but the imminence of the war kept him elsewhere, and Smith-Dorrien was sent instead. He surprised the two-or-three thousand cadets by declaring (in the words of Donald Christopher Smith, a Bermudian cadet who was present) "that war should be avoided at almost any cost, that war would solve nothing, that the whole of Europe and more besides would be reduced to ruin, and that the loss of life would be so large that whole populations would be decimated. In our ignorance I, and many of us, felt almost ashamed of a British General who uttered such depressing and unpatriotic sentiments, but during the next four years, those of us who survived the holocaust - probably not more than one-quarter of us - learned how right the General's prognosis was and how courageous he had been to utter it."[31] Sir John French disgraced himself in his own memoir’s he was much derided at the time

[@kevinbyrne4538]

Hastings says that at the time, people stoically accepted the losses of these bloody battles, but that's not true. In 1917, there was a revolution in Russia. French general Nivelle's offensive at Chemin des Dames cost so many lives that it caused a mutiny. The Germans sacked generals Moltke and Falkenhayn. In 1918, the German people were fed up with the interminable privation and death ; rebellions broke out on the home front. Even in Britain, general French was sacked after the battle of Loos, and by 1918 Lloyd George told general Haig that he (Lloyd George) couldn't and wouldn't give him more men. Men on the front were dying and people on the home front were starving, so that the generals could win a few square miles of ground today, which they would lose tomorrow.

[@leew1598]

I don't know if he meant that ordinary soldiers simply accepted very high casualty rates but that generals of the time and before were meant to expect large losses without flinching if it achieved a victory. Any general of the time unable to do that would have been considered unfit to serve.

[@kevinbyrne4538]

@@leew1598 -- The Germans very nearly won the war in 1918 by the use of infiltration tactics during their Spring Offensive. The Western Allies won the war by the use of combined arms warfare. Frontal assaults over open ground just filled cemeteries.

[@davegray3746]

I have liked Max Hastings' military history views however his "analyses" regarding English WW1 generals seems fundamentally flawed. Compare the German "solution" to the Western front. The Germans devloped Auftragetaktic and Stoss tactics. These demonstrated a thoughtful professional and intellectual approach of which the English had little equal.

[@lechevaliermalfet1]

+Dave Gray you can't be more wrong

[@davegray3746]

So "dab", in what way? Can you expand?

[@lorddaver1935]

+Dave Gray You refer to "English WW1 generals" and "the English". You fall into the usual, deeply annoying, trap of thinking that "English" equals "British". You really need to remember that full name of Britain is The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Great Britain, which is simply the largest of the British Isles, comprises Scotland, England and Wales. You do a dis-service to WW1 soldiers from Scotland and Wales (and, for that matter, Northern Ireland) who fought and died (and in the case of Scottish troops, in disproportionately high numbers) alongside their English colleagues. The British 51st Highland Division comprised such famous Scottish Regiments as The Black Watch and the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, among others. You may think I am being unnecessarily nit picking, but I don't believe so. Indeed, the British Commander in Chief from 1915, Field Marshal Haig, was Scottish himself.

[@lorddaver1935]

+Dave Gray You refer to "English WW1 generals" and "the English". You fall into the usual, deeply annoying, trap of thinking that "English" equals "British". You really need to remember that full name of Britain is The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Great Britain, which is simply the largest of the British Isles, comprises Scotland, England and Wales. You do a dis-service to WW1 soldiers from Scotland and Wales (and, for that matter, Northern Ireland) who fought and died (and in the case of Scottish troops, in disproportionately high numbers) alongside their English colleagues. The British 51st Highland Division comprised such famous Scottish Regiments as The Black Watch and the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, among others. You may think I am being unnecessarily nit picking, but I don't believe so. Indeed, the British Commander in Chief from 1915, Field Marshal Haig, was Scottish himself.

[@lorddaver1935]

+Dave Gray Why no response to my comment?

[@harrybuttery2447]

Disappointing. I feel it was quite simplified and much of what he says is more fanciful, emotive and cliche based than based in reality. And this is coming from one who agrees with his proposition. He could have handled it much better.

[@kentamitchell]

In 1926, Sir Douglas Haig wrote that while future wars would include tanks and aircraft, they would all be adjuncts to "the well-bred horse". That shows a very special kind of stupidity.

[@rogerpattube]

German army in WW2 relied heavily on horses. Haig wasn't so far off.

[@Baskerville22]

....as was his disdain at the start of the war for the machine gun.

[@matth4352]

​@@Baskerville22 Haig had no disdain for the MG, he wrote the estimates for the needs of the British army in the years preceding WW1 which recommended a significant increase in the number of MGs in an infantry battalion, recognising it's utility on the battlefield. His later view that the 'well bred' horse would still play a role in warfare was borne out by history. Over 90% or the German army which conducted the so-called 'Blitzkrieg' relied on horses - only the lead divisions were motorised. Taking a quote in isolation & using it to prove a myth is fanciful, at best. But what is missed in the post war papering over of the facts (yet it is a matter of record & in print for all to read) is that it was Lloyd-George the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, who, as a lifelong pacifist & hater of the military, refused to fund these & other recommendations to upgrade the army, including a huge uplift in artillery and shells in preparation for what Haig & Lord Haldane saw as the 'coming European War'. If you want somewhere to look for the huge British casualties of the early wars years of 1914-16 including the Somme, look no further than Lloyd-George's refusal to prepare for war. It remains an irony that the ignorance & timidity of the pacifist LG, led to so many deaths on the battlefield. One must also look to the failings in the French which led to the smaller British Army shouldering much of the load & thus casualties. The old adage, if you want peace, prepare for war, remains true even today. One only has to look at how Iran has become emboldened in the Gulf today in the face of a denuded Royal Navy and weak, vacillating politicians. Yet, the criticism remains of Haig as 'incompetent' & cruel. The truth lies some way from this view. He won the war and thus saved countless lives, yet LG ensured the blame for casualties was shifted to Haig in the years after the war - & those who have not bothered to study the facts (most people) still believe the myths. It warrants further study & not simple, ignorant repetition of the myths .

[@davidchapman356]

@@rogerpattube NB The Germans lost.

[@kentamitchell]

@@rogerpattube The Germans used horses to carry supplies, not to mount cavalry charges.

[@ДмитрийДепутатов]

Lee Sharon Hall Barbara Clark Paul

[@jameswhyard2858]

To consider WWI without any overview of the Franco/Prussian engagement as a modifier of military engagement (eg. employment of machine guns) is to be as unprofessional as the Brit Generals were and this "journalist" is!

[@rosesprog1722]

Repeating the same actions again and again and hoping for a different outcome is akin to insanity but if you also have the lives of a whole generation of young men in your hands then it becomes a crime so horrific, we have no name for it. British historians need to leave such patriotic apologetics behind and get in touch with reality for a while, this is increasingly damaging to the British war historicity, real heroes need not apologies.

[@rihannalovesgacha4623]

Uuuuir

[@Wolf-hh4rv]

Absolute garbage .... the Somme was a complete fiasco, and the men who must take responsibility for this are the senior officers. On the morning the men went over the top after a week’s notice by artillery. The bombardment did not break up tangled masses of barbed wire in front of the German trenches. The infantry were told to walk not run at the German trenches because officers thought that chaos would break amongst the relatively green troops. Also the artillery barrage was lifted so that German troops could climb out of their bunkers set up their machine guns and mow the British troops. I could go and on. Just people not rolling up their sleeves and and assessing the situation. With the dominance of defensive technologies why attack at all? Germany was slowly being strangled by the blockade. It made ma angry to listen to this.

[@MarkTreger-d7d]

Disappointing

[@spm36]

Sorry max but people were not informed as they are today of the crass incompetence and dismissiness of casualties by the high command..