Hi Old Man---forgive me for going a bit precious
However, back to business----If you are maintaining that French Generals were criminally inept for sending in attacks with the Bayonet, then, to be fair you must also conclude that German Generals were just as inept ---because their attacks, or more often counter-attacks, were conducted exactly the same?
And we know well enough that British Generals were profligate with their men's lives. But then so also were the Russians, And the Italians--etc. etc.
What we must conclude therefore--and similar casualty figures across the board seem to uphold this view----how could they not?-----Is that all the Generals of a complete Generation--right across the Globe---the highly trained proffessionals of the German Great General Staff, the unpredictable, but sometimes very successful officers of Imperial Russian Army, (only two major events of the war are known by the names of the Generals responsible for them---the disastrous Nivelle offensive of 1917 and the brilliant Brusilov offensive of 1916), the Republican products of St.Cyr, the Polytechnique and West Point, as well of those of Sandhurst and the Shires were all, since their performance was the same, criminally neglecting the basic tenets of war----such a proposition must surely be mythology unadulterated.
As for Verdun, isn't it a bugger when you set out to bleed an army white--and then find them unaccomodating when you decide you have had enough and want to break off the battle---but they decide to keep it going.
As someone who is a supporter of the 'strategy of evasion'---the 'knocking away of props'---what in the second war was called 'the soft underbelly' (who was it again who re-named it 'tough old gut)? An 'Easterner'--- You will, i know, at least concede that nothing much anybody did on the western front was very sensible in that viewpoint--the war should have been won elsewhere, and at much less cost!
Dave.