|
Andrew:
I do not accept your basic premise that Haig's motivation, nor that of any of the ranking officers in any of the Armies, was found in a malicious desire to see men die. Were most of them unimaginative? Perhaps. Big egos? Of course. You don't reach that rank or level of command without being certain that you are right all the time. Such confidence in one's own capabilities is essential in an effective leader at that level. But I still haven't heard any realistic options as to how the war should have proceeded instead. In fact, I haven't heard any options at all. Furthermore, it worked. The war was brought to a conclusion on the Allies' terms. Your quote, while poignant, shows nothing other than war incurs casualties. It could just as easily have been written by a soldier in the Armies of Alexander, Hannibal, Caeser, Napolean, Wellington, Rommel, or MacArthur. Death in battle is never welcome or fair, but it is part of war. The question is whether the casualties were "excessive' in light of the various combatant nations' goals. That was a POLITICAL decision, not a military one, and the decision was made by each nation (except Russia) to continue the war through most of 1918. Its been said that the Generals always try to refight the last war. It was that tendency, coupled with the tremendous advances in firepower and the loss of tactical mobility, both of which made the "last war's" tactics nothing less than suicidal, which resulted in the horrible losses, not a malicious desire on the part of the leadership to see men die.
|