|
Matt,
Haig himself said that he wanted the war over by the time that the U.S. reached France, as for tactics well the Germans showed that new tactics could work. The last push mid 1918 was a mini version of the 1940 Blitzkrieg, except that the did not have tanks, they used specially trained troops to cut barbed wire at night then used specially trained assualt troops to push back the allied lines, if they had fresh troops to back up the initial push, and if Germany was not in a state of civil disorder at home, they may have won the war by the time the US arrived
Getting back to Haig again it is documented that he supported a war of attrition, he knew that the allies had more troops and that numbers would eventually win him the war, even if it did go into a new decade.
As for excessive casualties Australia only had a population of 3 million at the out break of the war, 1 in 3 families was directly involved in WW1 and with a casualty rate of 227,000 killed and wounded I think we went beyond what would be called acceptable casualties. Maybe you think France's casualty rate was acceptable at 3.9 million or Russia's at 6.6 million or perhaps Great Britian and her domains (including Australia) at 2.8 million acceptable or if you just wish to count the allied dead with over 4.7 million lives lost, these figures were far from acceptable. Even Germany Austria and Turkey lost over 3.6 million dead. As for it being political all wars are political even the wars that are said to be based on religion. Australia's army of the time was completely volunteer, we supported and trusted Britian and her Generals only to have our young men butchered by men like Haig. Some of the 59th Battalion mutinied at Perrone, when after being relieved after 6 days intense fighting, and finally getting some sleep they were called out again, and there were other incidents.
One of the 59th wrote soon after the war:
"Drunk with success the British High Command continued to hurl decimated Australian Battalions into the thick of the bloody conflict...in order that a group of mad militants might appease their
inhuman appetite for blood and glory," but nearly all the troops in full pride, drove themselves on. They knew they were being used as shock troops, if not for Monash we would largely be wiped out."
As you missed the point behind the last quote I hope that you see this one. It was not the fact that young men died it was the fact that they were being butchered.
Going back to my earlier point on Australia's casualties, we only had 416,809 men enlist in the entire war, so with 227,000 casualties again it does not take a genius to work out that we had done more than our fair share, I don't know of any General that would be happy with over 50% casualties, oh sorry I forgot about Haig who once said that he would accept casualties as high as 80% if it would win him the war. Military Leader no!!!....... Butcher yes!!!
|