The Most Brutal/Incompetent Generals from Each Major Fighting WW1 Country [Pt. 1]

[@Mondo762]

General Luigi Cadorna's reputation is so bad that it will last throughout the ages.

[@jameshudkins2210]

Before I heard of this I never knew the meaning of the word decimation.

[@I.LikeCars]

@@jameshudkins2210maybe I’m a simpleton, but isn’t the idea to decimate the other side and not yours

[@indianajones4321]

Without a doubt

[@cjthebeesknees]

Here’s a promotion! Lol, no wonder communism set in.

[@aetius7139]

"Doing the exact thing 18 times is the last thing they will expected" ~General melchett, blackadder goes forth

[@wackyvorlon]

Being a general isn’t merely about executing strategy, it’s also about innovating strategy.

[@imabitmid]

when djemal pasha does know something about executing things... rest in peace to the victims of his ruthlessness, especially the armenians

[@albertocruzado2899]

Ah, Cadorna. A man turned hero, a hero that became a legend. Glory forever will be associated to this extraordinary austrian general, probably the greatest officer that the empire ever had.

[@guidodegroot6911]

Cadorna? The Italian guy?

[@albertocruzado2899]

@@guidodegroot6911 The greatest italian that ever served the austrian empire. He didnt saved the Habsburg rule, but he did his best indeed.

[@offtwogun5458]

@@guidodegroot6911Bro is being ironic about how Cadorna helped more the Austrians with his actions

[@bunkerkorpf1440]

@@guidodegroot6911 You're not bright

[@troygrindley3793]

It took me a while to realise what you meant 😂

[@b.chaline4394]

The entire Russian High Command of WWI should be on that list - with the notable exception of Brussilov, who might be the best general of that era. And yes, as many a comment said, let's not forget our friend Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf...

[@JDDC-tq7qm]

This is pt1 I imagine in pt2 there will be Russian ones and also French ones

[@williamcarey8529]

I agree 100%!!

[@fabulouschild2005]

Yehr I mean that Tsar himself tried leading the army and it went horribly wrong. One of the many contributing factors for Lenin and the Russian people rising up

[@supremecaffeine2633]

​@@fabulouschild2005 I'm pretty sure he didn't do that. He was mostly there for moral support, but he was the one everyone blamed since he was technically the highest ranked peraon there.

[@danielforeroc]

Ruzsky, Samonosov, von Renenkampf, were the worst, Alekseev, Kuropatin and GD Nikolai were mediocre, but others such as Brusilov, Yudenich, GD Mikhail, Kornilov, and officials that later became important like Denikin and Wrangel were good and brave men.

[@DBatta]

My maternal great grandfather fought on the "Austro-Hungarian" front during WWI, he was one of the few who came back in one piece, one of the few stories he told my grandparents was about "running for his life"

[@ItalianCountryball11]

Oh wow! That’s cool!

[@anzebeton1869]

Any idea which section of the front? Tyrol, Caporetto, Gorizia??

[@MatteoRomanelli-kl9fb]

Mine as well , he fought as an artillerist on the hermada. The other side of the family fought for Italy

[@TenOfTwenty]

Same, my paternal great grandfather served in the Italian army in WW1. I know he served on the Isonzo front but not much else besides that his commanding general were Cadorna and later Diaz.

[@svetozarboroevicvonbojna4702]

@@TenOfTwentyhe served with one of Italy’s biggest idiots, and one of there finest

[@indianajones4321]

Ismail Enver Pasha deserves to be on this list, during the battle of Sarakamish he forgot winter clothing and thousands of his men froze to death. He then blamed the Armenians, which kicked off the Armenian Genocide.

[@islammehmeov2334]

1915 🇹🇷☪️💪🏻☝🏻🔪🏳️‍🌈🇦🇲🇬🇷🖕🏻

[@BountyFlamor]

Well no, he blamed the Armenians for siding with the Russians as they advanced.

[@gringlebandersnatch]

​@@BountyFlamoras a distraction from crippling turkish incompetence.

[@thanhhoangnguyen4754]

​​@@gringlebandersnatch Yeah i mean what the heck. He marched his men in Winter without any properly winter gears or supply and it the Armenian fault for siding with Russia. How can he a war minister yet make an stupid strategy like that. Especially when study military in Germany. Then again he the one who brought the Ottoman into the War in the first place.

[@wet_owl_]

then gets assasinated by a armenian -turkish national hero

[@charlottewolery558]

Man it's a testament to German leadership in the war that the German's most incompetent General made essentially one bad call and then was sacked. Also saying Haig was the most brutal of the British Commanders is a high compliment as well as he actually won in the teeth of the toughest opposition.

[@robland3253]

He was asked for advocating the abandonment of Prussia in a Germany dominated by Prussians, not even after a defeat, but a strategic victory

[@anthonyeaton5153]

Look at a photograph of Haig with his senior generals and look for the one with the most kindly face-Haig. He was not brutal.

[@NoName-hg6cc]

​@@anthonyeaton5153No? He send thousands and thousands to slaughter hoping something will come

[@JamesDobson-c4n]

@@NoName-hg6ccwho didn’t at that time

[@NoName-hg6cc]

@@JamesDobson-c4n Some didn't. And it isn't an excuse anyway

[@DarrylAdams]

More balanced than I feared regarding Haig, but the incompetent Haig argument was a very successful reputational attack by David Lloyd George. From starving Haig's request for troops, and undermining him for political reasons. Lloyd George, with full throated support from people like Sir Keith Murdoch, did so much reputational damage we can still see today

[@coling3957]

very true i was going to say the same thing. this with holding of troops would be shown up in1918 when the German launched their spring offensive... British units were undermanned and had to retreat - which had the benefit of drawing the Germans out and expending irreplaceable resources. it also demoralised the Germans when they captured depots and found the British were supplied with food and materials not seen in Germany for 2 years! ... from boot polish to tinned meat, vegetables and sweets.

[@Scaleyback317]

Yep Lloyd George was the true villain of the peice for sure. The socialist dogmatic writers more intent on attacking the British leadership than they were the German and Turkish forces happily hammered in the nails he provided. The myths were so eagerly listened to and absorbed they persist to this day regardless of the proof to the contrary.

[@joeyj6808]

Amazing that people defend this butcher a century later. I guess repeatedly being shown his strategy AND tactics didn't work were just an oopsie?

[@Scaleyback317]

@@joeyj6808 Trying to bring this down to a childlike and childish, "oopsie" should be beneath any adult interjecting one way or the other. Everything about that war was a steep learning curve and there was no way, given the savagery of the battlefields, that curve was likely to avoid casualties on a previously unheard of level in warfare. Haig faced as many and adapted more to them than his peers. He had some brilliant commanders and did listen to them if and when fresh ideas, tactics and technology were forthcoming. Previous post pointing fingers at Lloyd George are justified. George was an opportunistic individual who did little to nothing but look for individual advancement and ehnhancement no matter where that opportunity arose. Did any of his peers offer a better alternative to the way he waged war? It could be argued those in other armies both friend and foe not only were not offering any other alternatives but were exacerbating the old methods. The French and Italian armies were treat abysmally by their leaders. Both eventually rebelled. Perhaps you'd care how you would have handled things differently and we'll decide whether the advantage of hindsight is relevent to your points. Perhaps if Haig had consulted wiki and google more often he might not have made some of the errors of course.

[@brettpeacock9116]

It is an undisputed fact that Field Mashal Haig, once the German Spring offensive of 1918 was stopped, was now free to fight the type of war he had trained to fight all his military life. 100 days later, and under Haig's leadership, ceded to him by the Allied Supreme Commander Marsal Foch, , the Allies forced the German armies into a collapse and forced the Armistice which ended WW1.

[@johnedwards3198]

As you have said Haig faced unprecedented technological and doctrinal changes. Passchensale was designed to gain territory but also keep German assets away from Verdun which was at risk. Losing troops in diversionary/secondary offensives is seen in the East to this day

[@MasterCheeks-2552]

I thought it was to put pressure on the German U Boat ports at Ostend and Zeebrugge?

[@edjohnson8017]

Also, I always ask people “what would You do” Because when you think about it, short of giving up and marching back to Blighty there’s very few changes you could make even knowing what we know now.

[@johnedwards3198]

@@edjohnson8017 Exactly Brits were used to colonial skirmishes and technological inferior opponents even when getting a blooded nose by Boers. When wearing brightly coloured uniforms and cavalry charges were still the done thing to what we now call combined arms offensives, WW1 changed war. It's easy to say now with body armour and excellent medical advances but in those days there was no protection and huge casualties were going to be a fact of life.

[@tillposer]

The Battle of Passchendaele was in October-November 1917, the Battle of Verdun went into slow mode in August 1916, after Hindenburg and Ludendorff replaced Falckenhayn, and was terminated a Couplet of months later. They are not connected.

[@MasterCheeks-2552]

@@johnedwards3198 Shows how much you know. Britain went into WW1 as (man for man) the most professional, best equipped, and modern army in the world. Germans and French were still marching in columns while the Brits were using fire and manoeuvre tactics, making good use of cover, and using section commands that are still in use today. They actually had khaki uniforms for starters. The British Army had canvas webbing in 1914. Everyone else was using leather. The British were using puttees while everyone else was using boots, soon everyone was wearing puttees The British had the best battle rifle in the world, period

[@alexandroskazantzidis8423]

1:55 That's a popular saying but it's BS, officers didn't sit on the rear drinking tea while their soldiers died, thousands of British officers (including many general officers) were killed by enemy action during the war. A bit less than 12% of regular British soldiers died during the war, while the officers had it noticeably worse at roughly 17%. The "not bothered by the death of their men" is also generally false, in the case of Haig it's well documented that the exact opposite is true, and after the war he spent the remaining days of his life advocating for his soldiers. Post war he refused to have two separate veteran organizations, one exclusively for officers and one for "regular" soldiers, which resulted in the formation of the Royal British Legion instead, and was instrumental in setting up the Haig fund (financial assistance to veterans) and Haig homes (housing for veterans). 4:45 In Haig's defense, he was told by his subordinates that the artillery bombardment had achieved its objectives when he ordered his men over the top. Haig was also a major proponent of technology, during the war the artillery core grew by 520% while the cavalry already by September 1916 had shrunk to less than 3% of the army, and by 1918 the British army was the most mechanized in the world, supported by the largest air force in the world (the air force was still a branch of the army). Although I don't think that any historian would disagree that he made his fair share of blunders during the war, he led the British army during the 100 days offensive which directly led to the collapse of the German Empire and the end of the war.

[@indianajones4321]

Also officers in the British Army from WW1 had a higher rate of shell shock/PTSD than enlisted

[@edjohnson8017]

Also why would you even want your most experienced and competent men milling around the trenches, looking at it pragmatically replacing field Marshall would be far harder then replacing anybody else

[@AVKnecht]

@@indianajones4321 That's debatable. If officers who were often part of the elites had PTSD after the war, they went to therapy. Working class men had just to deal with it or self medicate with Alcohol.

[@poil8351]

haig was a bad commander not unusual for the era ans probably not worse than most, but he was also duplicitous in his poltical machinations against other officers early in the war.

[@edjohnson8017]

@@poil8351 how was he a bad commander?

[@martinavery3979]

My grandfather, a WW1 vet, said the brightest thing about Haig was his boots

[@anthonyeaton5153]

What a great insight to the subject being discussed.🤣😂

[@HistoryPig-lc3ry]

Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf (Austria) belongs to this list, too.

[@Neonblue84]

pt. 2 is coming

[@indianajones4321]

Without a doubt

[@lordhamster9452]

Agreed

[@clydedoris5002]

What do you do when you launch two failed offensives on the carpathian mountains, you launch a third one

[@indianajones4321]

@@clydedoris5002 if at first you don’t succeed you try try again

[@ElGrandoCaymano]

Arguably minor, but Haig was not the most senior British general. Ignoring FM Roberts (who died in late 1914) and FM French (who was sacked in 1915), Haig became commander of the BEF in France in 1915, but reported to superiors at the Imperial General Staff and War Cabinet in London: FM Lord Kitchener, FM Robertson and then later Wilson in 1918. Haig himself became a field marshal after(!) the battle of the Somme in Jan 1917.

[@Scaleyback317]

Kitchener died in early summer 1916. My Gt Uncle was on HMS Hampshire and went down with him- On 5 June 1916, Kitchener was making his way to Russia on HMS Hampshire to attend negotiations with Tsar Nicholas II when in bad weather the ship struck a German mine 1.5 miles (2.4 km) west of Orkney, Scotland, and sank. Kitchener was among 737 who died; he was the highest ranking British officer to die in action in the entire war.

[@Ukraineaissance2014]

I may be wrong but i believe french was actually promoted out of the way back home so may have been still superior to haig technically, i will have to check

[@Joshua-fi4ji]

​@@Ukraineaissance2014not sure, but he was still effectively sacked for refusing to cooperate with the French, ironically. Many in Britain still considered France the true enemy after many centuries of near non-stop war with themup until the Crimean War. Kitchener was also disliked in political circles and was considered tricky to work with, but the vast majority still considered him a war hero making his propaganda poster even more effective. In terms of rank, he was the war minister, more of a politician than a general by WW1, and I don't think he had direct authority over Haig - though I am happy to be corrected if I made a mistake.

[@troyelliott1063]

I disagree with Haig being included in this list. The man who oversaw the transformation of British doctrine into All Arms Battle (a beta version of combined arms warfare still employed today) was clearly not reactionary and certainly not stupid. Furthermore, Haig did not wish to attack in the Somme as there were no strategic objectives there. He ordered Flanders because of the essential railway junction that the Germans had behind the line which was a vital node for resupply. In fact Haig didn’t even want to attack on July 1st because he knew his new army wasn’t ready, he initially wanted to push in August, but alliance politics and the incredible pressure the French were under at Verdun hanged all that.

[@mitchverr9330]

And after day 1 of the Somme and its massive losses, he immediately changed British command doctrine successfully which heavily reduced casualties and made the battalions in the battle way more successful by giving field commanders more control over what they were doing. It takes a lot of effort to completely change doctrine, yet alone in a couple of days during the greatest offensive taken yet by your army.

[@ElGrandoCaymano]

Not sure your point...if Haig hadn't sent his troops to frontally attach at the Somme, he would have just used the same disastrous tactics with the same efffect in Flanders. What condemns Haig is he just the the same in Flanders anyway the following year, obviously having learnt nothing from the Somme and ignoring the advice of his corps commanders.

[@mitchverr9330]

@@ElGrandoCaymano This isnt true, at all, tactics changed within a week of the Somme beginning, yet alone by the end of that battle. Tactics from, arguably, the platoon level upwards radically changed over time. The problem is that overall in trench warfare, you can only change so much, its still trench warfare. This also forgets and seems to assume that the Germans didnt also adapt and change over time, which they also did. Haig was in an arms race of ideas, the Germans were very good at keeping up on that, especially given they were unable to keep up with the British on the mechanical side of things.

[@rotwang2000]

@@ElGrandoCaymano This wasn't just a frontal attack, it was preceded by the most massive artillery barrage in history. The idea of "let's try the 57th frontal attack, the Hun will never expect that !" Is pure Blackadder. Both sides constantly improved their tactics. Nivelle saw the success of new tactics and equipment and promised a rapid victory, but the Germans had made significant improvements to their defenses and Nivelle suffered massive casualties at the Chemin des Dames. People also very conveniently forget that the Germans did push forward in 1918, but used up most of their army without breaking the allies and left the door wide open for a massive counter-offensive that probably would have floundered anyway if the Germans hadn't given to blind panic and called for an armistice.

[@vandeheyeric]

@@ElGrandoCaymano "Not sure your point..." Because you don't actually have much of a point, and certainly don't understand the war. "if Haig hadn't sent his troops to frontally attach at the Somme, he would have just used the same disastrous tactics with the same efffect in Flanders." Firstly: The Western Front was a continuous map of interlocking static defenses you absolute spazz. You keep blathering about "frontal attacks", but WHAT OTHER ATTACK ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO DO AGAINST FORTIFICATIONS FLANKED ON ONE SIDE BY THE CHANNEL* AND THE OTHER BY THE SWISS ALPS?!!? * Oh and before you say it, the British DID try to exploit the Channel to attack the Germans, they just had dismal successes at it with Zeebrugge. Secondly: Haig learned from those failures. Indeed one reason the first day of the Somme happened the way it did was attempts (both successful and unsuccessful) to learn from the failures of previous offensives like Aubers, such as focusing on a larger and more protracted artillery preparation. A preparation that failed, which again led to Haig changing tactics. "What condemns Haig is he just the the same in Flanders anyway the following year, obviously having learnt nothing from the Somme and ignoring the advice of his corps commanders." No, what condemns you is how you quite literally have ignored virtually every primary source document from said corps commanders and his enemies showing that Haig absolutely did learn from the Somme (which he won, I might add) and showed up to Flanders in 1917 with more concise artillery preparation and *freaking tanks* (you know, the history-shaping invention that Haig personally championed and if anything was Too Rosy about?).

[@williamhenry8914]

This isn't necessarily wrong, but also keep in mind that their technology had a massive bias towards the defender and trench warfare. Militaries struggle to dislodge entrenched opponents even with all the innovations that exist for doing so today in 2023, so it should be obvious how difficult doing the same would have been in 1914 to 1918.

[@HaldorMaximius]

As for Russia, Yakov Zhilinsky is pretty up there, just like Prittwitz, after the defeat at Tannenberg (and the Masurian Lakes) he was relieved from command. The man purposefully ordered his two armies to go in directions that would leave a drastically weak gap between the two...absolutely brilliant.

[@eddy_malouempereur_du_cong6536]

Why he did that ? He wanted to trape the germans or something ?

[@Conserpov]

@@eddy_malouempereur_du_cong6536 Most probably a turncoat

[@fishingthelist4017]

Russia left their borders relatively wild and undeveloped to keep the Germans from attacking, and then they attacked instead.

[@mickmcguire1727]

I first read the quote about lions and donkeys in Alexander Solzhenitsyn's August 1914. I think it came from General Ludendoff.

[@anthonyeaton5153]

The phrase was coined by British politician Alan Clark in his book Lions led by Donkeys.

[@JenniBrown]

@@anthonyeaton5153 his highly discredited book

[@nicholasfoy5401]

The e at the end of Entente is silent. It’s not pronounced “Ententay.” I know it’s a small thing but might spare you some embarrassment. Great content.

[@christianhusfeld5354]

You forget that the Plan of Tannenberg was formed under Prittwitz! And Ludendorf take his Plan and maked it to this masterpiece!

[@pshehan1]

Haig did not wish to fight battles of attrition. He always planned for breakthrough battles where once through the German lines, his forces would spread out in the open country beyond. That is why on the first day of the Somme, cavalry divisions were kept in reserve, ready to exploit the breakthrough, which of course never came. Haig chose neither the place nor the time for the Somme offensive. Britain was the junior partner to the French, and they chose the time and place. Haig had wanted an offensive further north in Flanders, where he did attack the following year at the third battle of Ypres, commonly referred to by its final phase, Passchendaele. The planned Somme offensive was pre-empted by the German attack on Verdun in February 1916. The French commitment to the Somme was scaled back, and the French became increasingly desperate for the British to launch their own offensive to take pressure off them at Verdun. When Haig told the French that his armies would be ready by August the French said that they would have been defeated at Verdun by then, so the offensive began on 1 July. Lessons had been learned in 1915. The main lesson was that success required a heavy preliminary bombardment, so a five day barrage was laid on, and it was expected that this would obliterate the German lines and its occupants. That expectation proved to be incorrect. The Germans were in dugouts up to 40 ft deep. They may have been driven to the point of madness, but they were alive to man the trenches when the barrage stopped. The reason the British were told to advance at the walk was because of this expectation, and th fact that they were very inexperienced volunteers who made up the majority of Kitchener's New Army, and that they had not learned more complicated tactics of fire and manouever which the experienced French troops employed on their southern section of the battle. So they were told to walk slowly forward to maintain cohesion, and occupy the trenches full of dead Germans. And they were carrying heavy loads, because they would be needed to hold the positions in the event of the expected German counterattack. The lessons learned in 1916 were applied in 1917, but there were still things to be learned, and at 3rd Ypres, things were going well until it started raining and turned the battlefield into the swamp it had been until drainage systems in place since the middle ages were destroyed by artillery. It all came together in 1918, when the right equipment and tactics, mostly due to John Monash, began the hundred days advance on August 8 which ended with the armistice. Solving the new problems of the first world war would have tested any General. It was known that frontal assault was to be avoided, but with trenches from the North Sea to the Swiss border, the only means of attack was frontal assault. It was always going to be bloody. The question was to learn how to make it work, and that meant time and experience gained by trying what did not work. Haig was an optimist. He expected the things he tried to work. They finally did in 1918. Haig was not regarded as a butcher at the time. He did care about the men. involved himself in veterans organisations after the war. When he died in 1928, hundreds of thousands of people lined the funeral route. Haig's reputation suffered due to the memoirs of Lloyd George, and the fact that the war to end wars turned out not to be. Then popular culture got into the act, with 'Oh What a Lovely War' and Black Adder. Haig may not have been a military genius, but neither was he a callous donkey.

[@gregglistrom2483]

Wow! An actual reasonable, intelligent comment in the comment section based on facts and not emotions.

[@paladinsix9285]

You present a number of valid points. In particular Haig's post war support for veterans. However, the UK was not the "junior partner" because France was dependent upon British loans to remain in the war, and other material resources. In the UK chose to withdraw from the continent, the French would have been compelled to sue for peace! Possibly that would have been better than the historical outcome. Imperial Germany would have taken little French territory, but would have likely taken Belgium. Russia would have sued for peace. Haig did not listen to subject matter experts about Artillery, and other technical aspects, nor did he respect (most) Infantry officers (Haig was Cavalry). In particular the British counted on Schrapnel shells, when they should have produced more HE (High Explosives). Haig obsessed about Control, resulting in far greater British casualties. Germany learned by late 1914 that small tactical attacks Company or Battalion sized (200 to 1000) men, using a brief 15 to 30 minute bombardment could achieve local surprise. Lightly burdened troops took fewer casualties. Following forces could bring up resupply, barbed wire, etc. Haig's obsession with a dramatic breakthrough caused him to reject more practical tactical attacks that would have been better to force the Germans to commit forces against the British. These were tactics that other Generals used in WWI, but Haig failed to. Haig also kept too many troops in the Frontline trenches, resulting in more casualties from Artillery. Haig (and the Germans) were good about rotation of troops in the Frontline, typically only 7 to 10 days at the front, then similar time to rest, then "fatigue duties" (logistics, digging and repairing defenses, etc.

[@arslongavitabrevis5136]

He was not callous but he was a donkey. BTW, Germany was destroyed from within thanks to the terrible blockade established by the Royal Navy. To this we must add the terrible losses after 4 years of war and the action of the Communists sabotaging the war effort and fomenting strikes. Spare me the myth that Haig learned from his mistakes and became a great general by 1918. Germany was exhausted, its army bled white and the British still could not win the war without the decisive intervention of the Americans who always arrive in time to save them from their incompetence.

[@pshehan1]

@@arslongavitabrevis5136 I did not write that Haig was a great general. He did learn during the war. You give a list of reasons why Germany was finished and defeat inevitable but then claim that American intervention was decisive. Ludendorff's failed spring offensive in 1918 was intended to break the allies before American forces could arrive in numbers to affect the outcome. In their first offensives Americans repeated the same tactical errors that the British and French had learned from and suffered accordingly. It was the British and Commonwealth armies which developed the tactics which brought about Ludendorff's black day of the German Army and the Hundred Day advance that ended with the German surrender.

[@michaelfoster5577]

@@arslongavitabrevis5136absolute garbage. When the Americans arrived - 3 years late! - they were too arrogant to listen to either the British or French and suffered horrendous casualties until they learnt from their mistakes. The only way in which they contributed to Germany’s defeat was the fact that the Germans felt they had to attack in early 1918, while they had a temporary advantage (thanks to troops arriving from the Eastern front) before American numbers tipped the balance. The 100 days campaign was a British triumph.

[@inductivegrunt94]

Haig was not that bad, the Somme was successful thanks to Haig deploying the first ever tanks on September 16th. While not the best, he wasn't terrible. He was just another general not completely prepared, and a little arrogant, for this new world of war they found themselves in.

[@MasterCheeks-2552]

Not great not terrible

[@mitchverr9330]

He also immediately would change tactics and doctrine when things failed, unlike many commanders during the war. The only thing he didnt really give up on was the hope to have a breakthrough and to try and stop the trench warfare side of the war (and try to open it up more akin to the eastern front). Cant really blame the man for that hope because well, the alternative was.... yeah. He was only really given the "bad/terrible" thing from like, the 50s on with the "lions lead by donkeys" thing, its interesting how actual WW1 historians generally do not hold the view of him being bad at the job, same goes for pretty much all the soldiers under his command.

[@Zeruel3]

Blackadder Goes Fourth doesn't help either, Haig's painted as a clueless butcher in it and the reason Blackadder gets killed in the end

[@ElGrandoCaymano]

Not that bad sort of equates to not that good. I can somewhat see your point, but it's difficult to claim the Somme was successful and the tanks were poorly deployed at the Somme (poor 1916-era tank tactics can't really be pinned on Haig).

[@edjohnson8017]

@@mitchverr9330he also was very keen on trench Rotation as well, which meant statistically you spend far more time playing cricket and eating bacon then being in the frontline trenches getting shelled.

[@MsVinchest]

French general Robert Nivelle is well known for the battle of le chemin des dames/ second battle of the Aisne, leading a lot of frenchmen into suicidal assaults (ending in a german victory by the way). Then the sound of mutiny rose in the french infantry.

[@bunkerkorpf1440]

Nivelle failed at Chemin des dames, but he was successful at Verdun. I don't know any major French commander which was continuously a true failure during WWI. It's easier to decide for WWII lol

[@aghenito]

@@bunkerkorpf1440 I don't agree, it's not easy for wwII, we have need to fight for that

[@MmmGallicus]

Duchêne

[@dianedylan5423]

If you decide to do a best list, please research Canada's general Arthur Currie who's merits are sadly often unknown to most.

[@Blackfoxparadox]

best general of the war

[@MCL003]

Could you guys do a similar video but with competent generals

[@leighmonty13]

To get killed in war is a unfortunate terrible thing but to be killed by bad even criminal inept general is one thing but to civilians needlessly is worse so personally ild say the last general

[@iffracem]

And don't forget the abject failure of autocrats, politicians and diplomats that allow, or even encourage conflict to begin with

[@tillposer]

For a in-depth analysis for the British Army can be found in the seminal "On Military Incompetence" by Norman Dixon. Haig actually was not a bad leaders, there were quite a few much worse...

[@keatonburton5636]

I am familiar with the Twelve Battles of the Isonzo thanks to the Armchair Historian.

[@studiosraufncingr6965]

I am familiar with the Twelve Battles of the Isonzo thanks to our history class in school and high school.

[@indianajones4321]

And The Great War channel

[@izzfitri6888]

And WW1 Game Series.

[@mr47chicagosneakers48]

Always a test coming across a unique and very interesting look at the Great War. I’ve exhausted all efforts to feed my addiction on ww1/2 & the Cold War. Every documentary I’ve see. And very rarely a gem such as this brings me great pleasure!!

[@indianajones4321]

Conrad Von Hötzebdorf must be in part 2!

[@yellowjackboots2624]

That fruitcake deserves a whole episode

[@indianajones4321]

@@yellowjackboots2624 facts

[@charlottewolery558]

That idjut was the best and worst part of the Great War series. He'd be comical if he didn't basically cause the whole of World War I.

[@yellowjackboots2624]

@@charlottewolery558 the man Indy loved to hate

[@lordMartiya]

Fun fact about Cadorna: when in 1908 prime minister Giolitti had to appoint the new chief of staff of the Italian army he had to choose between Alberto Pollio and Luigi Cadorna... And appointed Pollio purely because he knew Cadorna's reputation and nothing about Pollio's. The sad part about Cadorna: back then he, Pollio and the Duke of Aosta (who was second in the succession line right after the king's four years old son, so he couldn't be appointed as chief of staff because the king was scared of him staging a coup) were the only Italian generals who understood industrial warfare. By the time of Caporetto there were more, including Armando Diaz (who replaced Cadorna on account of knowing what to do and not being the Duke of Aosta), but back in 1908 there were only the three of them, and with Pollio's death in 1914 only Cadorna and the Duke of Aosta. The HORRIBLE part about Cadorna: he wasn't the worst Italian general of World War I. That would be Pietro Badoglio... Who was well connected and a freemason, so after Caporetto he wasn't shot for cowardice and incompetence as he should have been but promoted, with his failure to shell the attacking Austro-Hungarians right as they were clustering in a mountain pass being covered up (he had anticipated they'd have to pass there and prepared the artillery, left orders to NOT open fire without his orders, and left for his HQ. The preliminary Austro-Hungarian shelling cut the phone lines, the light signals couldn't be seen due autumn mist, and the audio signals were covered by the noises of the battle, so the Austro-Hungarians passed and only found out their luck when they captured the guns).

[@stevensamuels4041]

11:05 min where did you get that number? 900K causaulties?

[@DLAbaoaqu]

If Conrad von Hotzendorf and Czar Nicholas II don’t make part 2, I’m calling bullshit.

[@gtangari]

Just one thing: the Austrian broken the Italian front thanks to the decisive help of the German army and the great incompetence of generals Capello, Badoglio(!!!!) and others more than Cadorna himself.

[@arslongavitabrevis5136]

Very true! Well said!

[@Boretheory]

And the fact said Germans had Rommel amongst them

[@christopherwebb3627]

I'm a naval history person, so forgive me... at 13:02 we are told that "a Turkish fleet, organised by German Adm Souchon launched an assault on the Russians". Why no mention that UK had confiscated 2 Turkish battleships that were completing in British yards, and that Souchon had handed over the 2 vessels of the German Mediterranean Fleet to the Turks instead, a gesture which rather tipped the balance on their decision to join the central powers? [Read Dan van der Vat's excellent "the ship that changed the world" for more info]. The ship shown at 13:10 is the larger of those, SMS Goeben, however, for extra lols, the one at 13:04 is one of the two taken over by the RN, and which never went anywhere near the Med during her service career.

[@williamcarey8529]

Throw Luigi Cardona in the the "Hall of Shame"!! Make him the main attraction!!

[@Litany_of_Fury]

Haig by the end of War would be considered the finest general of the entente and maybe the entire war. The man's tactics did change over time.

[@oneshotme]

I enjoyed your video and I gave it a Thumbs Up

[@cagg2927]

Not a general but Churchill's incompetence cost as dearly

[@NormGilmore-gr4et]

You got that right.

[@hansulrichboning8551]

Moltke the younger is annother candidate for the list. Totally focussed on the infamous Schlieffen-Plan he never developed alternitives .Having only one plan, the germans set themselves under pressure, because Schlieffen-Plan demanded a strict time-schedule. Moltke got his job only because of his name respectivly his famous uncle.

[@chrisgibson5267]

I'd recommend the videos on The Westetn Front Association's channel. Their breakdown of the Schlieffen Plan takes it back to it's origins following the Franco-Prussian War.

[@user-qi5jw2hg1c]

moltke ballsed up the Schlieffen Plan by weakening the 'swinging' flank. The rationale of the Plan as Schlieffen had it was perfectly sound, but it wasn't properly executed and that was the issue

[@dallasjonpaulgrove547]

Cardorna is just Italian Vaas- "Have I ever told you the definition of Insanity?" Would be nice to see a series on Good Generals throughout WW1, to cover Armando Diaz who I believe to be one of Italy's greatest Leaders of all time, up there with Giovanni Messe and Guiseppe Garibaldi. Context (From my knowledge and Undestanding)- Armando Diaz (For those who don't know) was put in Charge after Luigi Cadorna was forced to Step down as General of the Army. As you know Diaz was faced with having lost 2/3rds of his entire ground force, beset on the Piave River (Basically in Italian Country), and the Allies refusing to help unless Diaz could hold the Enemy back. Instead of utilizing the same tactics and strategies his Roman Political peer was using, he instead re-organized the Italian Army structure within days and adopted several newer strategies and tactics. Among one of them being Elastic Defensives, practically taking a page out of the German and Austrian handbook. He also started to Utilize more and more the Arditi to cover his losses. Perhaps the only good thing to come from Cardorna was his fortifying of Monte Grappa, because Armando used the position to throw back an Austrian assault that was assisted by German Alpenjagers. Really interesting stuff though, love this video.

[@Cranstal]

My grandmother lived through the Great War and she would never wear a poppy because it had the word Haig stamped on it. She said he wiped out the young men of her generation.

[@mikereger1186]

The Somme needs the context of reducing pressure on Verdun to be understood. There was a reason they had to keep going, it was cold blooded calculation, not stupidity.

[@guyplayzgamez9604]

To call Cemal pasha incompetent is a huge disrespect to the things he had done for his country and people. Read Falih Rıfkı Atay’s Zeytin Dağı in which he is a adjutant of Cemal pasha.

[@kellyswoodyard]

That 'modest' amount of 270,000 casualties at Paschendalle included my great grandfather who was never found, he was atomised. His brother was there as well, he was badly wounded, and never got home to Australia until 1922. He wasn't well enough.

[@johnryder1713]

As they say, a general only has one job, to tell soldiers to get killed and the same way, if you thought one general was crazy, maybe they all are

[@bigtimepimpin666]

I served under one colonel who would become a general Dana Pittcard (1 Infantry Division in Warhorse/FOB Normandy 2004) . He was a complete piece of shit. I went on to serve under many others. This one is the only one I woukd consider a turd. All the others were very squared away.

[@johnryder1713]

@@bigtimepimpin666 Thanks for your service

[@AnthroGearhead]

If i was a general, i would do the same, cuz why not dispose all worker ants :v

[@daless3526]

The battle of Caporetto was a COMBINED GERMAN and Austria offensive to knock Italy out of the war. That's they retreated. And they got practically no help from the "Allies". They were eventually stopped and over time took everything back and marched into Austria.

[@andre_santos2181]

Usually, the Napoleonic motto was "attack, attack, attack" to win the war. But WW1 was different, since the technology changed so much. "Defend, defend, defend.". The old roman Fabius Maximus Cuntactor would be a great general at WW1

[@w0lfgm]

Waiting for part 2. And then video about competent generals.

[@julianshalders6047]

Major general sir John Monash, Australian strategist essentially ended ww1 utilising brilliant tactics .🙏

[@anthonyeaton5153]

Monash was a Lt General and commanded a corps, 350,000/400,000 men. Generals command armies and FMs millions of men. The battle of Le Hamel plan was brilliant but it was borrowed from General Plumer’s Messines assault in 1917 and other generals. It was a tactical victory not a strategic victory. Remember this. The war would have still been won WITHOUT Australia but NOT with Britain. You never think of how the war was run. British industry and supplies all delivered by the British Army Service Corps kept those armies moving. That is Logistics a force never mentioned by Australians.

[@julianshalders6047]

Australian John Monash, brilliant strategist pushed the Germans back essentially ending ww1 with a combination of air force and fierce fighting of allied soldiers, mainly Australians , utilising military tactics never tested.🙏

[@anthonyeaton5153]

Monash was helped by Haig and his staff in formulating the plan. By that period of 1918 the German army was shattered by four years attritional warfare and was recruiting 16 year old boys for the front line. And, never forget, it was a British division that breached the Siegfried line which resulted in the success and ending of the war.

[@michelmendoza1769]

The first War gave meaning to an end with horror being preferable to a horror without end

[@mohammedsaysrashid3587]

Thank you for your respectful (front line ) channel for sharing this informative historical coverage about some brutal/ incompetent generals of WW1. I think Ottoman Jamal pasha was most brutal general because he ordered annihilation of subdued civilians ...thank you for sharing

[@jokodihaynes419]

"It is better to be feared than to be loved, if one cannot be both." -Machiavelli

[@williamcurtin5692]

stolen or least parodied from Caligula. "oderint dum metuant". I've heard of a variant of this credited to Tiberius.

[@AYVYN]

“I want people to love how much they fear me.” - Scott Michael

[@lordMartiya]

On just how well Cadorna understood modern warfare: between the experience on Lybia (where his aggressive tactics would have actually been well suited, but a less aggressive and more politically suitable general was sent) and Pollio's notes he understood the key was firepower and industrial production, and he successfully increased the amount of machine guns and howitzers in Italian use through measures we would call dictatorial outside of a major war... But he also understood that Austria-Hungary had the industrial advantage AND that with half their armies on the Russian front he could exhaust their reserves with offensive after offensive until either his troops or Russia's broke through. THAT was why he launched eleven offensives against the Isonzo defensive line, he expected the enemy to run out of men first. And if it hadn't been for the Russian military collapse, it would have worked. That's also the main reason he's remembered in Italy: not just for the harsh discipline, but because he reduced the war to a callous game of numbers fully knowing and understanding every unit was a man. If there was an evil man in World War I, that was Luigi Cadorna.

[@fuckingpippaman]

what industrial advantage had AH? Are you delirous? The ratio of howitzers on the isonzo was 10 to 1 in favour of the Italians and 3 to 1 men also in favour of the italians

[@lordMartiya]

@@fuckingpippaman The industrial advantage of actually HAVING a sizeable industrial production and a less corrupt procurement system. Your figures refer to the end of the war, after the Italian high command forced a crash industrialization program (the one thing Cadorna did right) but Italy entered the war with a scarcity of artillery, rifles, and especially machine guns (this a direct result of the board that rejected the adoption of the excellent Perino machine gun being headed by the inventor of the competing FIAT 1914 machine gun and the Army refusing to adopt the FIAT for being unreliable and trying instead to buy Vickers guns (and getting scammed out of the money because Italy was technically allied with Germany and the British government blocked the sale) until they were told they were entering the war in a month).

[@fuckingpippaman]

@@lordMartiya if you say so. My sources differs.

[@lordMartiya]

@@fuckingpippaman I would like to know what your sources are, given they obviously don't talk in any detail (if at all) of the Italian front.

[@fuckingpippaman]

@@lordMartiya Mario Silvestri's books. He might have written 10 or even more on just the Isonzo front. I've read about 5 or so plus a couple from other authors that i can't remember. Its been years.

[@mattwordsworth9825]

Haig deserves to be on this list. The amount of soldiers and field officers he threw away at the Somme alone is something. Thankfully PM Lloyd George didn't give full control of the army to Haig.

[@tomcurda4203]

During the "Great War", 19th century theory of war collided with 20th century technology.

[@georgeirwin9649]

Haig most definitely does not deserve this reputation. We have the bliss of hindsight and can look back and say how stupid Haig was, but anyone in their right mind would consider a weeks long artillery bombardment to have worked. It wasn’t to his knowledge of how faulty the manufactured shells were. Also, the Somme was a necessary part of the war as it killed many of Germanys experienced soldiers, not only that, but it saved the French at Verdun (which was the offensives primary obj). Through this campaign Haig and his staff learnt many valued lessons on how to fight a war and using this knowledge pioneered the concept of combined arms warfare. (Using air reconnaissance combined with a creeping barrage, the use of tanks and better communication and free will to the ground commanders) these lessons proved he could be a good commander as the offensives showed in 1918.

[@ElGrandoCaymano]

Fine, but why didn't he realize the July attacks had failed and call a stop as it was evident the barrages hadn't succeeded. Isn't this what a sensible person would have done? Instead like a crazed gambler, Haig just doubled-down and kept pouring more and more young men in for a further 6 months! And did hear learn anything from this? No he tried the same thing in next year's spring Arras offensive and then 3rd Ypres/Passchendaele. As Teflon as Trump, Haig survived 1916, 1917 and even 1918 (like in 1915, Haig's boss Robertson was the one sacked in spring 1918). At this point Haig's subordinates (basically any of them) had much more free range to devise their tactics and it's almost miraculous Haig's pudgy fingers didn't mess these assaults up in the last 100 days of the war

[@Skipper.17]

He was known as butcher Haig at that time in his own army. That says something.

[@guyharrison5773]

Say what you like, but Haig was the general who worked out how to win in WW1, and then did so. The "lions lead by donkeys" epithet is and always has been rubbish. Your characterization is simply false.

[@petergray2712]

The Somme didn't save the French at Verdun. The Brusilov Offensive saved them. The Russians were pushing the Austro-Hungarian Army towards strategic collapse, and the Germans had to rush their available reserves to the Eastern Front to forestall this, and that included all of the reinforcements needed at Verdun. The Somme Offensive is overrated, mainly because Haig and subsequent British historians exaggerated the German losses the BEF inflicted. The better description would be "strategic stalemate" rather than calling it a victory. Also Gough.

[@coling3957]

@@ElGrandoCaymano at the end of the battle the Germans had lost twice as many men as the British . you can't start an offensive and then simply call it off because things went wrong on some parts of the front on the first day. it was going to be a battle of attrition .. the image of troops simply being mowed down by machine guns was in one part of the line and the British general in command there was relieved of command. its become an image though of the whole battle, thanks to post-war poets and war movies ( all anti-war ofc) Its far easier for the Germans to sit in their trenches and fire from cover than to attack, thats always been the case.. in the end the German sitting divisions became so demoralised and disillusioned that they surrendered in droves in later offensives.

[@tulliusexmisc2191]

There was no creeping barrage at the second battle of the Somme in 1916, and that is one of the reasons the attack failed so disastrously. (The other is that the British general staff never bothered to test their theory that shrapnel would destroy barbed wire.) Britain developed artillery barrage tactics over the course of 1917, and put them to great effect in the second half of 1918. Haig's policy of attrition was worse than you claim. The goal was not to have fewer British casualties than German, but more British survivors, until if necessary he reached the point there were no Germans left. Haig was counting on the manpower pool of the entire British Empire, which was much larger than the Second Reich, so he could accept much higher losses than the enemy. Of course, the experiences of colonial soldiers in the trenches would start to undermine the very idea of the empire he was fighting for. Britain was not the only belligerent to follow a strategy of attrition - Germany was just as guilty. But it achieved nothing good for either. France won the war on the Marne in 1914, putting the Central Powers on a one-way road to bankrupcy and famine. Their only hope of breaking the siege would be to persuade one of the Entente powers to switch sides or the USA to join on their side - both virtually impossible.

[@drabantcorper4727]

Wait where’s hutzendorf??? :(

[@greygalah]

Haigh. The lyrics of that Pink Floyd song comes to mind: forward he cried from the rear and the front line died.

[@milionST]

Just a small correction; Gorizia is, at the moment, Italian town.

[@brendenoneill3068]

do a video on the Best Generals Field Marshals of the war Svetozar Boroević von Bojna (Lion of Isonzo)

[@christopheferraux2864]

is that in the second episode, he will have the French general Robert Nivelle?

[@Schnitzelfox]

5:55 He was force by Lloyd George to do that. It wasnt his decision to be cautious

[@JervisGermane]

I'd never read Haig's name written out before, only ever heard it in podcasts and audiobooks. I've been spelling it wrong in my head this whole time.

[@mickmcguire1727]

Thank you for the comment. I wonder did he write his book before or after Solzhenitsyn's 1914?

[@cgtq1986]

Austria-Hungary - Franz Conrad von Hotzendorf: He wanted a war with a passion, and when he got it, bungled it up from the very start - Oskar Potiorek: Sent to deal a swift victory against a smaller Serbian army, only to get his ass whooped twice in Cer and Kolubara. France - Robert Nivelle: His failed offensive in Chemin des Dames brought mutinies of French troops all over the Western Front and paralized Allied efforts. Ottoman Empire - Enver Pasha: Never heard of Napoleon, because he invades Russia through the Caucasus without packing winter clothes. Gets a trashing in Sarikamis and blames the defeat on the Armenians, sparking a genocide. - The entire Russian General Staff, except Aleksei Brusilov. Great Britain - Charles Townshend: Prone to deliriums of greatness, he led an overreaching offensive in Iraq, gets besieged in Kut, surrenders, and willingly becomes a propaganda tool for the Ottomans as a POW while his men suffer in miserable conditions.

[@ambrosiusdalfinger9223]

Maybe interesting to know, von Prittwitz made the plan of the battle of Tannenberg.🤔

[@akend4426]

I seem to recall Douglas Haig once remarking that “the machine gun is a very overrated weapon.” That more or less sums up how much of a failure as a military leader he was quite frankly.

[@chrisgibson5267]

There was a great deal of discussion amongst the German senior officers following the Prussian victory over France in 1870. It's very well covered in a video on the origins of the Schlieffen Plan, and its apparent that not all of them were convinced that the machine gun was a battle winner. The claim that Haig felt them overrated is disputed, and there's evidence to show that he appreciated their utility from as early as the end of the wst in the Sudan in 1898.

[@anthonyeaton5153]

Compared to the ferocious artillery bombardments the m/gun was over rated.

[@King_of_Railways]

Where's Conrad v. Hötzendorf 😮😢

[@mookie2637]

I'm a little surprised Mark Clark isn't here. In any case the "lions led by donkeys" quote was a major selling point of the book that sort-of popularised the "poet's war" view of WW1 - Alan Clark's "The Donkeys". While there is much to be said for the book, Clark later confessed that not only his attribution of the comment, but its entire existence, was made up.

[@michaelfoster5577]

Mark Clark - the American WW2 general?

[@kurtlambert6859]

without Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf this list doesn't even make remotely sense. For him you'd have to establish an entirely new level of incompetence. First, he pushes Franz Josef to declare war on Serbia, then asks for a delay until after the harvest. Sends his troops in the wrong direction (Russia : Serbia) and has to redirect the trains. Then self destroys the AH armies in Carpathian winter campaign for which he did not equip them and consequetnly loses the Przemysl fortress. Ans all the while he snugs himself up in a posh palace with his young lover in his bed while his soldiers starve and freeze

[@ibrahimkamara9508]

Do ww2 generals/admirals next

[@AdamSharif.]

By the way your tag thing on the bottom right of the video’s writing is tiny

[@heikkiremes5661]

Luigi Cadorna, undoubtedly, "Hey, you know the thing we've been doing 10 times in a row with catastrophic results? Let's do that again, this time it'll definitely work!"

[@Boretheory]

I mean it wasn’t that catastrophic the problem were the executions and his treatment of the soldiers, not the plan which was literally the only possible one

[@PasMPM]

It is strange that a club from Argentina is called Douglas Haig, given his dubious reputation in the conflict. It is uncertain what information would reach the country between 1914-18, but on one of the pages dedicated to this club I found the following story: "The Douglas Haig Athletic Club was founded on November 18, 1918. After the resounding triumph of the allied forces In Germany, a group of workers from the Argentine Central Railway (Mitre Railway) decided to found a club to participate in the local soccer championship and to do so they needed the consent and support of the head of the railway, Ronald Leslie, who, as a condition, requested that The club will be named General Douglas Haig, a British marshal who participated in numerous battles." It doesn't delve deeper into the information, but it's clear that this Leslie guy didn't have a bad idea about this general. Wikipedia only says: "The club was named Sir Douglas Haig, a Scottish marshal who distinguished himself in the First World War." This year 2023, Douglas Haig lost a final to ascend to the 2nd division of Argentine soccer, so it will continue playing in what could be called the Third Division of Interior Soccer (Federal Tournament) since the other 3rd division (First Metropolitan B) It groups teams from the nation's capital and its surrounding area, called the "Metropolitan Area." Just one piece of information, greetings!!!

[@karetsin8700]

DJ Emal sounds lit 😎🤑

[@generale7590]

cadorna 11 battles (all lost with a lot of casualties and the remain of the army was untrained troops) diaz 2 battles (all won with the final battle that disintegrated the empire than less than 100 years before the start of ww1 was in all of italy, diaz is literally the hero of italian people after garibaldi)

[@Boretheory]

Cadorna didn’t lose all battle by ww1 standards he still moved the frontline in an extremely hard terrain so it’s a victory

[@generale7590]

@@Boretheory yes but diaz had won the great war rebuilding the army from scratch, training the troops, offer them the possibility to turn back home for a period of time, giving artillery and mordenize the weaponry and invigorate the morale of the army (infact with the surrender of russia there were more german and austro-hungarian troops on the western front). it is obviously that cadorna didn't lose all battles, in the first period of the war (before caporetto) he arrived in slovenia but after the retreat he always want to reconquer the lost territory with desperate attack and unequipped army (cadorna was replaced with diaz because victor emanuel wanted a real win)

[@fishingthelist4017]

​@@Boretheorythat's one way to put lipstick on a pig.

[@Aaron-sx7zf]

@@Boretheory and then proceeded to lose it all and more

[@ezioauditore1522]

Ma di quali battaglie vinte da Diaz vai cianciando? L'unica vera battaglia vinta fu quella del Solstizio nel 1918. La battaglia di Vittorio veneto non fu una vera battaglia. L'esercito austro ungarico si stava ritirando e dopo le prime scaramucce abbandonò a terra le armi. E comunque Diaz per farlo schiodare dalla linea del Piave ci vollero quasi cinque mesi prima di avanzare dopo la battaglia del solstizio. Per via di questa condotta paurosa e ritardataria da parte di Diaz, l'Italia rischiò di rimanere con un pugno di mosche in mano. L'armistizio venne firmato il 4 novembre e l'Italia entrò a Trieste solo il giorno prima, rischiando di dover andare ad elemosinare la città a Versailles col rischio di perderla; visto come andò con la Dalmazia che prima ci fu promessa e poi negata cosa che non sarebbe avvenuta se quel cacasotto di Diaz ci avesse portato prima in Dalmazia le truppe italiane. Non saremmo stati qui a parlare di vittoria mutilata con tutti i casini che ne sono seguiti. E comunque le undici precedenti battaglie sull'Isonzo furono quasi tutte vittorie italiane.

[@schelfie1986]

Wait, what? No Conrad von Hotzendorf? Indie Nidell would be displeased...

[@tillposer]

Haig, Cadorna and Djemal were commanders of a whole Front with multiple amies, Prittwitz was merely the commanding officer of a single army, and that of what had been onsidered of secondary importance. If you had to include a German General of that stature, it would have been Falckenhayn. While Prittwitz was incompetent, his tenure must have been one of the shortest in that conflict, barring death... The German system worked admirably. It is even possible that his removal was triggered by his chief of staff, who, as a Great General Staff officer had the right to appeal directly to the Kaiser over the head of his superior.

[@paladinsix9285]

Von Pritwitz was removed because he called OKW and spoke directly to Von Molkte ("the younger") and stated he was going to violate his orders, and throw out the plan. Worse, it sounded like Von Pritwitz was panicking. Von Falkenhayen was sacked because his campaign to break the French army and nation at Verdun failed. Similarly, Von Molkte was sacked when the pre-war plan failed. Von Falkenhayen went on to be a successful field army Commander, conquered Romania in a matter of weeks, and did well vs. the Italians, Russians, and "advising" the Turks.

[@josephmatthews9866]

War ,for whatever reason why, makes beasts of us all !!! History continues unabated in human conflicts unabated !!!

[@daless3526]

Ah, Gorizia is part of Italy today. Check your map.

[@oilersridersbluejays]

Prittwitz is a bit of an enigma here. His quick loss of nerve and willingness to abandon East Prussia while gaining the initiative is very uncharacteristic for a German officer. The divisions of the German 8th Army were mostly Prussian and the elite of the entire German Army. Also, The German railway system was highly efficient, and troops could be ferried from place to place quite quickly. The Germans also did not have supply problems. They had large numbers of artillery and machine guns. They also had very high moral. You could have also mentioned Prittwitz’s opposite number, Yakov Zhilinsky, commander of the Northwestern Front, who failed to coordinate the Russian 1st and 2nd armies into a cohesive fighting force. Supply problems, moral that sank quickly, long, aimless marches into German ambushes, and being totally overwhelmed by German artillery and machine guns, and failing to recognize that the front was crumbling and he was being outmanoeuvred makes Zhilinsky one of the most inept and forgotten commanders of World War I. Hell, the Russians didn’t even use any codes to transmit wireless messages. Needless to say, the Germans intercepted and translated these messages with little effort.

[@JonWebb-s3b]

I guess Joffre, Hotzendorf, and Samsonov, will be in the next episode, or maybe Nivelle and Grand Duke Nicholas.

[@bobbyanderson951]

pt. 2 please

[@alessandromarangon841]

The battle for Gorizia was the 6th battle of the Isonzo, not the 7th

[@theawesomeman9821]

I feel sorry for all these soldiers who were unfortunate serve under these generals/commanders.

[@AnthroGearhead]

Shao Kahn: LOL !

[@adamtank1746]

What about Hötzendorf?

[@davidsigalow7349]

"A war fought by calculating generals for whom no cost was too high. "

[@liaratsoni8556]

Just thought I’d point this out but the Ottoman Empire didn’t actually have ‘Istanbul’ as the capital. The name wouldn’t change until the civil war and formation of Turkey. The city was called Constantinople but with a Turkish flair, Konstantinyye.

[@hansulrichboning8551]

Djemal Pasha did not win the battle of Kut, but FM von der Goltz who died somewhat later by cholera.

[@AEIOU05]

Funny that Hötzendorff wasn’t mentioned. But tbh he was mostly just mediocre and a relic of an era gone by. While his early decision making in 1914 was undoubtedly a big mistake, his staff work from 1915-1916 was positively received from the Germany Army high command and they even based some of their own operations on his work. However, he was no match for a 3 front war and considerably overestimated his army‘s logistical capabilities

[@davidfernandes920]

This list is proof that military incompetence is not restricted to only a few nations.

[@jamesb4789]

I think the inclusion of Pershing in particular shows a lack of awareness and a misunderstanding of the realities of 1917/1918. The reality is the French in particular saw Americans as replacements and not as an allied Army. they wanted to plug American troops into their line because their army was one step away from another mutiny and the American troops were a chance to reduce the French losses in their mind. Politically, Woodrow Wilson and most of America supported an American Army but would never support the French ideas. In fact many Americans still objected to bailing out the British and French Empires. Pershing had his orders from Wilson and that including keeping he US units as a unified command. The British did not object per say, but were concerned about the losses in the learning curve, though they were impressed at the performance of US troops at Bella Woods. The second issue was the French desire to send US units to all the other theaters to relief the stress of the French empire. The truth is Pershing understood that the war could only be won on the French front and sending troops to the secondary theaters would not bring victory. In this the British were in agreement with Pershing. Meuse Argonne battle was bloody, but not actually any worse than the losses the British were taking to the north. The Germans had hoped the inexperienced Americans would break, but instead the overran the German defenses. The British were crushing the Germans in Belgium and then the Americans were punching through on their front. The Americans were not flinching in the assaults. The British offensive ground down from exhaustion by the end of October, but the Germans were very aware that only 20% of the American troops in France had engaged them. The Germans feared those fresh troops would renew the attack before winter closed in and another 2 million would be ready for the 1919 spring offensive. The Americans and British would break through and then march on Berlin. Pershing was not wrong in sending his men into battle, despite the losses. Wars are not won from trenches and in WW 1 that meant losses. But it also meant his men learned how to fight in the trenches and they developed new strategies. Both the British and Americans were developing tactics to open mobile war to win and that meant breaking he German trench lines. Point of interest: The Americans introduced the combat shotgun to the war and it was the most effective weapon used for clearing trenches at the time. The French thought it was a joke and the Brits just shrugged.

[@drpapa26]

Wrong. Luigi Cadorna did not escape repercussions. After Caporetto, he was sacked from his position as chief of staff by King Victor Emmanuel and replaced by general Armando Diaz - a far more competent commander who rallied the Italian army, prevented a mutiny and led Italy to victory in 1918.

[@madkoala2130]

And later after the war still got the title of Field Marshall (i wouldnt, call that getting sacked)

[@brokenbridge6316]

Djemal Pasha was the worst of them all. With Cardona as a close second. With Haig at third place. Prittwitz is dead last. And that's my assessment in that order of the worse from this list.

[@Zeruel3]

Djemal Pasha was the worst. Prittwitz lost his nerve, Haig was out of his depth and learned from his mistakes (kind of). Cadorna was a bloodsoaked idiot but didn't carry out a campaign of genocide and mass murder of civilians the way Djemal did

[@yazovgaming]

That's what the Three Pasha's did

[@Tysandifer]

Haig has my sympathy, True he messed up. But Given the nature of the war he wasnt the first nor last to fail at a task.(this after all was a war of modern technology that no one had ever witnessed so it's understandable that there was an EXTREMELY steep learnong curb) He learned from his mistake but the nature of stagnant war was there's no long term goal past a few days of winning something. People fought months and only gained roughly a mile of land just to have 1 night raid take it all back and vice versa. The war truly was who gave up first

[@napoleonibonaparte7198]

It took the Italians numerous Isonzos...

[@IronWarhorsesFun]

The entire German strategy at Verdun was quite literally stated "To bleed the enemy dry before they bleed us" this was from generals who had seen 2 years of hellish trench warfare already and still thought this was a viable method to conduct war.

[@wleeclark7696]

Professor John Mosier's book analyzes Falkenhayn's strategy and that was not it. Falkenhayn had observed that the French would sacrifice their troops to take back territory - the doctrine of assault. Falkenhayn was relying on the French to slaughter themselves in futile assaults for an objective that they had to defend - Verdun. Falkenhayn's strategy would have worked for any French general except the hated Petain, who believed in defense, not assault. Read "Verdun" by John Mosier for further discussion.