World War I Book

[SMK-at-work]

If you can criticise me in a rational manner fine....I can rationally debate the matter.
 
when you say I am "merely" repeating something, that I should "grow up" you are attacking the person, and not the message.
 
sure I've said you are wrong....but then I go on to say why I think you are wrong.  that gives you an opportunity to corect me if I have made an error - if you have an actual argument to make then by all means make it.
 
you haven't addressed one of the points I made regarding Mosier being a bad historian.  Does that mean you agree with me?

[Jestre]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

If you can criticise me in a rational manner fine....I can rationally debate the matter.

when you say I am "merely" repeating something, that I should "grow up" you are attacking the person, and not the message.

sure I've said you are wrong....but then I go on to say why I think you are wrong.  that gives you an opportunity to corect me if I have made an error - if you have an actual argument to make then by all means make it.

you haven't addressed one of the points I made regarding Mosier being a bad historian.  Does that mean you agree with me?

You have yet to make a point, you merely stated opinions and leveled accusations. I have one last "point" to make to you; READ THE BOOK!!!!!

[wargamer123]

There are probably hundreds of good WW1 books. Not reason to put this one aside. Many authors I've read had "opinions," or weak "facts." Not to say that this one doesn't have sources or reasons to state things. That's besides the point, the subject matter here should not be personal but objective.
 
We all seek objective Truth. We are all amatuer Historians and laymen of the subject of WW1. I bet no one here has a Doctors in History or in particular specializing in the Great War. So the books written probably are fair to study and make some assumptions with. There are so many great materials comming out now with more honesty than ever. As the propaganda years are dying. You read something from 1920s written by an English author it may be highly influenced by the times and the individual. It is good to read as much as possible.
 
For instance of all the books and documentaries I've read on WW2, mentioned above was the supply issues of the Red Army around Moscow, the harshness of the situation and weather conditions. Perhaps the slight edge of one side was they were fighting on their soil and they had a little luck gave them the day.
 
Rather than that they were superior or that the other side was freezing and had to be defeated. I've often heard, "Had Hitler not turned away from Moscow, and had he attacked it directly right off!" The war would've been over. There is no proof now that would've even meant the end of it. Nor that he would've succeeded. As if a German success was a given no matter what... Though it may have been highly likely, it is again a whatif and a waste of our energy to assume.. In any wargame we can see that there a lot more of Russia to give! Napoleon Figured that out
 
 
WW1 is a tough subject matter, the battles are high casualties and there a great deal of varying opinions. I find it harder to hit the bullseye than with the subject matter of WW2. So we should be with open minds and study whatever
 
I'm reopening now with great curiosity and much intrigue. It's been years, but GOA has reopened my eyes to a lot.

[hjaco]

ORIGINAL: Jestre

These losses are killed and missing not wounded. All figures I used were kia and mia not wounded. Sources for German losses Mosier used were the Sanitatsbericht uber das deutsche Heer im Weltkrieg 1914/18.

That sounds more reasonable then as the same source stated a total casualty rate of around 200.000 on the German side during the months of German offensive operations.

But it opens up for discussion whether that figure is representative and the relevant input to use in the calculation about who was actually winning the war (still I haven't read the book and the presentation of the analysis) as I think the factor in the equation should have been be battle ready numbers on each sides adding new recruits/rekonvalescens ?

[hjaco]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
but modern works pretty much all agree that, for example, the allies lost more troops on the Western Front than Germany did. This is often said to be becaue teh allies were,overall, doing most of the attacking.

Quite so. I will again refer to general belief of WW2 in the complete superiority of the German soldier. Statistics shows that in fightings against wallies (after France 40') the casualty rate was something like 2 to 1 in favor of Germany. But that is not conclusive proof that they were all factors taking into account better soldiers as they were in the defensive for most of the time.

The quality in 44 was far lower than in 40 caused by obvious reasons.

But the whole discussion about casualties is twisted. What it all comes down to is battle ready forces at hand and in the future and not the least the political/moral will to fight on.

[hjaco]

ORIGINAL: wargamer123

I've often heard, "Had Hitler not turned away from Moscow, and had he attacked it directly right off!" The war would've been over.

Exactly. Truth is after getting to Smolensk in a couple of weeks time Soviet resistance was so fierce that the German troops was in the defensive and under attack until they gathered all their strength for their October gambit.

[SMK-at-work]

I have no intention of spending money to get this book - the reviews on the 'net are quite enough to persuade me it is not worth it.  I've read glowing reports on it from people who love it....but even such reviews highlight significant errors in judgement or the highlighting of well known facts as if they were something new and exciting that only this author has the courage and insight to reveal.
 
No doubt this means I'm "merely" a dupe of the "accepted line", but I can live with that in this case.

[arichbourg]

In any case, it's a darn good read. I'm in the middle of it and enjoying it. Thanks for the info about online reviews, etc.

[Disintegration]

Most wars end when one side decides it is beaten, not when all capability of active resistance is physically beaten down - WW2 in Europe was exceptional.
 
Unfortunately, this subjective process often gives rise to decades of wrangling over the true nature and meaning of the victory and defeat. Most of this wrangling serves one of two purposes: to alter perceptions of a later political divide by redefining and rewriting the historical narrative, and to salvage or burnish the reputations of individuals involved in the original conflict. Often the memoirs of those involved - in this case, most especially of Ludendorff, but many others on both sides as well  - exist more to serve these interests than to advance our knowledge of history.
 
This thread reminds me of similar debates over the Vietnam War and, particularly here in the southern US, the American Civil War. 99% of the ink spilled in those battles serves no useful purpose.
 
The Germans lost. Either they bungled the war or it was unwinnable and they were stupid to enter into it (and, unusually, the German Army leadership had almost total control over both). If they were as superhuman (in this war and in WW2) as they are sometimes portrayed, the German Amry, like the Army of Northern Virginia, could not have lost.
 
The why and the how can be a very interesting topic to study, but any approach from the angle of "How the [losing side] really won, but wuz robbed" strikes me as unlikely to be sufficiently objective to be of much use in this regard.
 
I'll save my money for the remainder of Hew Strachan's series.

[wargamer123]

One has to definitely admit a tiny nation like Germany Populationwise did do in a small amount of time some impressive feats. Just like the great victories of the Army of the Northern Virginia Disintegration  mentioned, better leadership, better marksmenship... the iniative and there you go
 
but in the longrun the same story, less manpower, industry and unable to cope with a long war, so Gettysburg was right, and the Ludendorf offensive probably was right too??? Correct me if I am wrong the last ditch effort to end WW1?
 
Any good movie, documentary or novel will illustrate these battles... Though history is history and the victors write the Books   and the losers hate the victors and we all love an underdog! even if they're not perfect

[Disintegration]

Impressive, yes, but not enough.

I was brought up in the Cult of Lee and still find the man very admirable in many ways. But ultimately, his strategic vision fell short. Gettysburg wasn't a plan to win the war, it was a gesture. Lee could not hit on any strategy that, if successfully pursued, would win the war for the South. (Much of that, of course, wasn't his fault: he had little if any control over the loss of Tennessee and the Mississippi which is what really doomed the South.)

Like Hannibal, he won battle after battle but they only prolongued the war rather than bringing it closer to a conclusion. Also like the Japanese in WW2, they faced political systems that were more likely to increase their resolve with every setback than to decrease it (although the ACW is the most marginal in this regard... the Union was nowhere near as implacable as Rome or the post-Pearl Harbor US). They lacked the military means to win a quick decisive victory and lacked the material and political means to win a long war of attrition.

The 1918 offensives were somewhat different, but IMO Ludendorff's failing was the same as Schlieffen's: the plan was theoretically a war-winner, but the means at his disposal were not capable of executing the plan as written even under the best possible circumstances. Schlieffen's (and Moltke's) painstaking logistical plans and studies simply could not deliver the required number of troops at the place and time the plan marked as decisive - the road net and available transport could not carry them.

And if Ludendorff was to win he had to keep up the momentum of relentless attacks, but the only way he could be sure to keep winning was to react to events, to follow the path of least resistance, rather than to stay fixed on the goals that would beat the Allies. It was either continue to make suceesful attacks that led nowhere in particular, or mount a losing attack that would win the war if successful. To quote a line from a bad movie, the only way to win was not to play. However, after the war, he couldn't admit that his gamble was doomed from the outset, so he had to invent a fictitious narrative to explain the defeat.

Haig et al had what you'd think would be an easier task: to argue that their eventual success justified the losses. However, poking holes in his defense didn't implicate Sacred National Honour the way disagreeing with Ludendorff would.

It's instrumental to note what happened to Longstreet after he published his memoirs.

[wargamer123]

The South was looking for a Diplomatic end at best in my humble opinion, a stalemate was not going to achieve that. The North would never tolerate an equal partner or a possible foe. I think that the string of victories Lee won were quite amazing and though prolonging the Civil War he would have fought for the Yanks if Virginia would've joined the other side. His loyalty was there... Just doing is job...

The havoc wreaked upon the South as I have lived there a great deal of time is still evident today. The Tactics founded by such players as Sherman still are visible there century and half later. Nothing was changed but the decimation and death. Freedom was never achieved, slavery was still present. The South still hated the North it was beaten like a child into submission rather than gently brought to understand a friendship or relationship 

I think Gettysburg would not have achieved a victory, but could have achieved something. A few more like it...insight fear into the North.... one can never tell what it takes to break a nation, but perhaps it was a last desperate act and nothing would matter same as the Germans but with less hope of a favorable outcome

I think that war redefined wars...  as for WW1 as you pointed out so clearly, the CP found itself in the same boat or rather Germany. She may have never won but negotiated better terms for herself. All but what you wrote is all I've really read of value on the last German offensive in the West, and all that I heard is that the Germans ran out of steam and were low on morale. Though pretty much had everything else they needed. Insightful...  

On LongStreet what you spoke of is published on-line, not my favorite subject anymore but I still dabble
http://www.wtj.com/archives/longstreet/

[06 Maestro]

There is a very good book that can shed some light on the question of the German Army;s effectiveness; A Genius For War, by Colonel T. N. Dupuy (U.S. Army, Ret.)- printed in 1977. The book covers the the development of the German General Staff, and its effects on the Army's operations. There are effectiveness ratios reflecting losses in both offensive and defensive situations. The conclusion of the study is clear; the German Army was by far a superior organization, unit for unit, compared to any of its adversaries.

It has been many years since I read this book (I just went to see if I still had it in my library-I have it in my lap as I type), so I can't raddle off statistics. I will have some time in a few days to post some good (infuriating?) stuff. I do recall the primary reason for the creation of the General Staff (a branch of the army) was to "institutionalize military excellence"-this they did. By the time of WW1 it had been in existence for about 90 years. It was banned by the victors of WW1 (did they view it as a threat?[:)]), but in fact, continued in secrecy. The superiority of German arms ( unit by unit/action by action) in WW2 had nothing to do with Nazi ideals, but with the skill and dedication of true military professionals of the General Staff (the vast majority of whom were junior officers).

[SMK-at-work]

Mosier also points out that BEF losses from July through November were over 100,000 men killed, over three times as many as the Somme offensive of 1916.

Have been looking for something special to deal to this little gem....the Commonwealth War Graves Commision - that well known bastion of the official line - gives 125,000 British and Empire dead (from 420,000 casualties total) for the Somme...you can find the figure in a pdf they publish on the graves at http://www.cwgc.org/admin/files/cwgc_thiepval.pdf.  They give French losses as approx 200,000, and German as approx 600,000....yep....those figures are wildly reduced on the allied side to make them lower than the Germa total......

Pretty much tells me all I need to know about Mosier.

[Jestre]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Mosier also points out that BEF losses from July through November were over 100,000 men killed, over three times as many as the Somme offensive of 1916.

Have been looking for something special to deal to this little gem....the Commonwealth War Graves Commision - that well known bastion of the official line - gives 125,000 British and Empire dead (from 420,000 casualties total) for the Somme...you can find the figure in a pdf they publish on the graves at http://www.cwgc.org/admin/files/cwgc_thiepval.pdf.  They give French losses as approx 200,000, and German as approx 600,000....yep....those figures are wildly reduced on the allied side to make them lower than the Germa total......

Pretty much tells me all I need to know about Mosier.

I don't think anyone ever needed to tell you anything about Mosier.... on anyone making any argument you have already made your mind up on.

[Jestre]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Mosier also points out that BEF losses from July through November were over 100,000 men killed, over three times as many as the Somme offensive of 1916.

Have been looking for something special to deal to this little gem....the Commonwealth War Graves Commision - that well known bastion of the official line - gives 125,000 British and Empire dead (from 420,000 casualties total) for the Somme...you can find the figure in a pdf they publish on the graves at http://www.cwgc.org/admin/files/cwgc_thiepval.pdf.  They give French losses as approx 200,000, and German as approx 600,000....yep....those figures are wildly reduced on the allied side to make them lower than the Germa total......

Pretty much tells me all I need to know about Mosier.

Okay...let me get this straight.... the British/French Somme offensive resulted in 325,000 Brit-French losses and 600,000 German losses..... Wow you really got me there..... obviously Mosier is on drugs and the Somme was a massive victory for the Allies...[:D][:D]

[wargamer123]

at Stalingrad I'll bet you my bottom dollar that the ratio of dead was in the ballpark of at LEAST 2 to 1 Russians dying to Germans

doesn't mean anything, deathtolls hurt France/England/USA/Russia less than they hurt Germany

For the info provided about the German General Staff. Tend to think of the Origins of Germany in Prussia, often regarded as an Army without a Nation? Perhaps forced to fight more hardcore in order to establish a country. Unlike the French who could always fall back on what they had... The Germans had very old Military Tradition with Brandenburg on... As the British had a very hardcoded Naval tradition, even with Nelson who was still studied and practiced in the 20th naval engagements.

Fight enough war, soil your boots enough and you'll be adept at it.. The German General Staff was good but for it's time, sort of like the USA's West Point

ORIGINAL: Jestre

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Mosier also points out that BEF losses from July through November were over 100,000 men killed, over three times as many as the Somme offensive of 1916.

Have been looking for something special to deal to this little gem....the Commonwealth War Graves Commision - that well known bastion of the official line - gives 125,000 British and Empire dead (from 420,000 casualties total) for the Somme...you can find the figure in a pdf they publish on the graves at http://www.cwgc.org/admin/files/cwgc_thiepval.pdf.  They give French losses as approx 200,000, and German as approx 600,000....yep....those figures are wildly reduced on the allied side to make them lower than the Germa total......

Pretty much tells me all I need to know about Mosier.

Okay...let me get this straight.... the British/French Somme offensive resulted in 325,000 Brit-French losses and 600,000 German losses..... Wow you really got me there..... obviously Mosier is on drugs and the Somme was a massive victory for the Allies...[:D][:D]

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: Jestre

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Mosier also points out that BEF losses from July through November were over 100,000 men killed, over three times as many as the Somme offensive of 1916.

Have been looking for something special to deal to this little gem....the Commonwealth War Graves Commision - that well known bastion of the official line - gives 125,000 British and Empire dead (from 420,000 casualties total) for the Somme...you can find the figure in a pdf they publish on the graves at http://www.cwgc.org/admin/files/cwgc_thiepval.pdf.  They give French losses as approx 200,000, and German as approx 600,000....yep....those figures are wildly reduced on the allied side to make them lower than the Germa total......

Pretty much tells me all I need to know about Mosier.

Okay...let me get this straight.... the British/French Somme offensive resulted in 325,000 Brit-French losses and 600,000 German losses..... Wow you really got me there..... obviously Mosier is on drugs and the Somme was a massive victory for the Allies...[:D][:D]

No, he's stating that the British/French suffered approx. 620k casualties during the Somme and the Germans suffered approx. 600k.

I may have a somewhat revisionist view, but I look at the Somme (in addition to Verdun) as the death of any offensive potential for the German army in the West, hence an Allied victory.

[anarchyintheuk]

I enjoyed reading Mosier's book, but it's been a year or so since I read it so I my recall may not be 100% accurate. I did have problems w/ a couple of things.

He overstates the effectiveness of the AEF. Everything that I've read shows them to be year or two behind the BEF and the French in terms of tactics: unnecessarily dense formations, c&c, inadequate amounts of artillery and prep, etc. (although the US did have a shortage of heavy caliber guns that was not really their fault or under their control). The BEF and the French had taken several years and suffered enormous losses while learning to better coordinate inf/arty fire and movement, improve communications, decentralization of command to allow for quicker response, removing the emphasis from the reg/bat to the company/platoon as the relevant tactical formation, effective use of air power. . . the list is too long to continue. The AEF was somewhat indifferent to the lessons learned and suffered accordingly. Mosier usually explains the high casualties suffered by the AEF as the Germans fighting in that area and retreating against everyone else.

As stated in my previous post, he declares the Somme as some sort of German victory. I don't see how that is possible.

He basically states that BEF was over as an effective fighting force after Somme, Flanders and the 1918 Spring offensives. Yet this was same force that was most innovate and effective (my opinion only) of all of the forces in the West during the Fall 18 offensives. Mosier certainly didn't go into any great detail explaining the arse kicking of the Black Day.

There are others, but I'm in rambling mode now.

[SMK-at-work]

ORIGINAL: Jestre

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Mosier also points out that BEF losses from July through November were over 100,000 men killed, over three times as many as the Somme offensive of 1916.

.... gives 125,000 British and Empire dead (from 420,000 casualties total) for the Somme........  They give French losses as approx 200,000, and German as approx 600,000....

Okay...let me get this straight.... the British/French Somme offensive resulted in 325,000 Brit-French losses and 600,000 German losses..... Wow you really got me there..... obviously Mosier is on drugs and the Somme was a massive victory for the Allies...[:D][:D]

Primary school arithmatic would tell you that allied casualties total 625,000 vs the 600,000 for the Germans.

And that 125,000 dead on the Somme is not 1/3rd of 100,000 dead in 1914 as you claimed.

so yes...I think we really got you there [8|]