Has history misjudged the generals of World War One?

[viper37]

Excellent piece by the BBC, focusing on Britain's conduct of the war and its general:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zq2y87h#z2x3wmn

[Valmy]

I think they have.  The generals (well...not just them the armies in general) completely transformed the way war was fought and the equipment and tactics used.  There was no major offensive or operation, in the west anyway, that did not have something about it that was unprecedented in military history, either a new experimental piece of weaponry or a new tactic.  Now granted all of them failed, but they failed in different ways.  The image they just kept sending mass infantry assaults over and over again without any new ideas us not really true.  By 1916 being on the defensive was every bit as deadly as being on the attack.

That is not to say I regard the WWI generals as great geniuses either.  I just don't think they were any more moronic than generals in any other war.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

That is not to say I regard the WWI generals as great geniuses either.  I just don't think they were any more moronic than generals in any other war.

Shit, compared to the Union generals in the first couple years of the war, they were all Pattons and Rommels.

[jimmy olsen]

That is not to say I regard the WWI generals as great geniuses either.  I just don't think they were any more moronic than generals in any other war.

Shit, compared to the Union generals in the first couple years of the war, they were all Pattons and Rommels.

Well they were actually professional generals, not Lt. Colonels promoted to Major General or retired junior officers with political connections made Colonels or Bg. Generals.

[Drakken]

While they were actually professional generals, not Lt. Colonels promoted to Major General or retired junior officers with political connections made Colonels or Bg. Generals.

O RLY?

[grumbler]

Well they were actually professional generals, not Lt. Colonels promoted to Major General or retired junior officers with political connections made Colonels or Bg. Generals.

Read a biography of Winston Churchill; he was precisely a retired junior officer (second lieutenant) with political connections, promoted to lieutenant colonel and given command of a battalion after he left office as First Lord of the Admiralty.

[Sheilbh]

Slight aside, I was looking at the Jenkins biography recently - worth getting?

[Zanza]

Well they were actually professional generals, not Lt. Colonels promoted to Major General or retired junior officers with political connections made Colonels or Bg. Generals.

None of them had fought a war remotely like WW1 though and most hadn't fought any war at all.

[grumbler]

Slight aside, I was looking at the Jenkins biography recently - worth getting?

I have it, but haven't really read it yet.  Jenkins has a very quirky style that I think you would like, but which certainly isn't for everyone.  Check out some sample pages to see if you can read him for a thousand pages.

[crazy canuck]

Slight aside, I was looking at the Jenkins biography recently - worth getting?

Jenkins has a very quirky style that I think you would like, but which certainly isn't for everyone. 

A Grumbler compliment? 

[Siege]

I hate officers.

[Neil]

Slight aside, I was looking at the Jenkins biography recently - worth getting?

I read it  and enjoyed it.  It was a pretty good survey of his life, and I think it benefited from Jenkins' political experience.

[Neil]

Well they were actually professional generals, not Lt. Colonels promoted to Major General or retired junior officers with political connections made Colonels or Bg. Generals.

Read a biography of Winston Churchill; he was precisely a retired junior officer (second lieutenant) with political connections, promoted to lieutenant colonel and given command of a battalion after he left office as First Lord of the Admiralty.

He had been a major in the Territorial Army, so his jump to major and then lieutenant colonel wasn't totally ridiculous.  It's not like they made him a division commander or something.

[grumbler]

He had been a major in the Territorial Army, so his jump to major and then lieutenant colonel wasn't totally ridiculous.  It's not like they made him a division commander or something.

Still, he was a retired junior officer who got bumped up in rank because of his political connections, as described by Timmay.  Agree that it was not totally ridiculous.

[chipwich]

Well they were actually professional generals, not Lt. Colonels promoted to Major General or retired junior officers with political connections made Colonels or Bg. Generals.

Read a biography of Winston Churchill; he was precisely a retired junior officer (second lieutenant) with political connections, promoted to lieutenant colonel and given command of a battalion after he left office as First Lord of the Admiralty.

How do you get to be First Lord of the Admiralty after 2nd LT even if you have like, ducal blood or something? Shouldn't you be some sort of Lord or Admiral first?