I agree; my belief has always been that you can’t understand where we are today unless you appreciate what happened in World War I. On a tactical basis, static, costly battles incredibly bad for troop morale; almost no maneuver except at the very beginning and the end and in the Mideast theater and Churchill’s disastrous Gallipoli campaign; unbelievable disregard for the lives of our best young men. The strategic consequences were horrendous; the rise to power of the murderous Bolsheviks in Russia who would have never been allowed near public toilets much less the government in normal times; the same for Hitler in Germany; the feeling in the US that led to isolationism in WW2 was a direct result of having lost 100,000 men for a European war that made little sense to the average American. I have never been to Fort Douamont in Verdun but I have been to the Somme. Verdun was a direct result of German Gen. Falkenhayn’s belief that the German nation had more young men to lose than the French, thus they could bleed the French nation to death. Same thing for Gen. Haig at the Somme. Horrendous military thinking with expectable horrendous results.
I encourage reading Manchester’s first volume of his three volume biography of Winston Churchill to gain some strategic understanding of the Gallipoli campaign. The slow advance of naval forces made Gallipoli possible—it might well have been avoided. Churchill suffered greatly the blame but was arguing a different strategy than he was saddled with in the end. It is a good study in the difficulties of leading in wartime.
War of attrition. . .such a sad waste.
My grandfather “went over the top” seven times before he was hit in the hand. While being treated for that injury he was gassed. Survived but had a mangled hand and bad lungs for the rest of his life.
He was with the 30th Division to the 4th British Army under Sir Henry Rowlinson, “The Old Hickory Division.”
He was in the same company with his childhood friend and he saw him get hit. As it is related, my grandfather asked his pal after he saw him fall if he was wounded severely. The friend answered “I guess one of my legs is gone, but I don’t think there’s any danger.” His friend died 6 days later.
Such men. Such brave men. Too few today.
I don’t agree about Haig in comparison to Gen. Falkenhayn.
Falkenhayn was deliberate in his use of attrition to wear down the French.
At the Somme, Haig was expecting that the artillery barrages and mine explosions would blast holes in the German lines that his troops would march through, besides trying to put pressure on the German’s to relieve Verdun.
Haig was ignorant of the job, Falkenhayn was deliberate. And as it was, Haig and his staff learned from the mistakes, added it to the training of new troops, and, by the time Third Ypres and Cambrai came round, the British troops were able to actually make headway against the Germans, not, just attriting them.
Haig was by no means perfect, but, does deserve a closer look than what he usually gets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Haig,_1st_Earl_Haig