generalship (WW1)

• Key generalship of Marshal Foch (French army)?

  • Led the French supported by BEF at the 1st battle of Marne 1914 which ended the Schlieffen Plan & forced German army to a trench line- down to solid defensive tactics & use of reserves to support the line
  • Counter attack at Ypres 1915 failed to break German lines, as did the 1916 offensive at the Somme, and he was dismissed
  • Made Commander in Chief of the Allied Armies in 1918. When his trench lines held the last German Spring Offensive, he led the final Hundred Days offensive which forced Germany to agree to an armistice
• Key generalship of Hindenburg (German army)?

  • Started war in weakened position defending Eastern Front from 2 Russian armies but defeated the badly led attacks at Tannenberg and Masurian Lakes, where German machine gunners cut down a frontal charge of the Russian army, he was able to push the Russians out of Prussia
  • Became German Commander in Chief, reorganised economy & recruitment to prolong fight & built a new defensive line on the Western Front which held up American attacks
  • Tactics kept army fighting until 1918 but mid this year the heavy attrition made him advise surrender
• Key generalship of Haig (British army)?


  Took over in 1915 and was politically pressured to lead a major attack to relieve Verdun, a French city under siege. The attack cost 420,000 British and 200,000 French lives from only July to Nov of 1916. It allowed British to advance 6 miles and pressured the Germans to retreat a few miles to new, purpose built defence lines.
• Summary of how Haig shows how inept leadership affected the nature of the war?

  • Haig's tactics are the same at both the Somme and Ypres showing how he was inept and didn't learn from his mistakes
  • WW1 was a learning curve for generals and there weree some effective moments of leadership by the end
• Lines of argument for Haig?

  • He's only seen by his mistakes, he wasn't a modern man and shouldn't be judged as such. Had many achievements such as reforming the army and preparing it for a major war, transforming the army into a war winning army, his battles had a vital role in destroying the enemy (Somme, Third Ypres, Arras), he transformed the army on the Western Front and he led the way to defeating Germany in 1918
  • He was the obstacle in maximising Britain's efficiency due to his approach of a decisive break-through which meant higher cost of lives. Gives nod to victories eg Hundred Days.
• How many casualties were ta the Somme because of Haig?

  500,000
• Argument in favour of Haig because of 'commander in chief'?


  It's easy to be critical when he was trained to control only a small number of soldiers and then was expected to command millions of inexperienced soldiers which limited his tactics
• 'Lions led by donkeys'


  Famous quote condemning generalship
• Evidence that generals didn't care?

  General Melchett's headquarters were in a French Chateau 35km away from the trenches
• Evidence of generals bad use of tactics?

  Opted for tactical choices that jeopardised the lives of their men throughout the war. General Falkenhayn created a plan to 'bleed the French white' at Verdun despite it having little strategic importance, he thought exhausting French resources and manpower would win the war. Thousands of Germans and French lives were lost to what amounted to an extended bloodbath in an attempt to win the war by attrition. At Aubers Ridge 1915 generals mistakenly believed German's had withdrawn more troops to Russia and 11000 British soldiers were killed or wounded
• What were the same tactics used?

  Preliminary bombardment and frontal assault
• Evidence generals got over the learning curb?

  Went from preliminary bombardment and frontal assaults to combined arms
• Argument supporting generals on the Western Front?

  They had limited avenues for manoeuvre due to the trenches and they were under pressure to produce results, but there were few lines of attack that weren't directly across No Mans Land
• It is a myth most generals were out of touch and didn't have a good understanding of the pain and suffering their men were going through?

  Yes- of the 1252 generals, 146 were wounded and taken prisoner, 78 were killed in action and 2 were ordered the Victoria Cross for valour
• What- arguably- were more important factors for WW1?

  Not due to the incompetence of generals but importance of going on the offensive where heavy casualties were unavoidable. Offensive troops moved 1-2mph, defence moved 25mph with railways and in that time could reinforce 20 times as fast as an offensive unit. Communication also gave the defensive an advantage but if generals were aware of this they could've adopted...
• How did generals try to innovate?

  Preliminary bombardments to creeping barrage, using gas, attacks at night- so tactics DID change
• How many in Haig's army were volunteers?

  Over half- no wonder they had to simple tactics
• How did Haig help reform the British army prior to the outbreak of war in 1914?

  He was in the War Office as Director of Military Training on the General Staff and played a key role in the Haldane Reforms. These reforms initiated to try and modernise the army. It included the establishment of the BEF whose number rose to over 120,000 by 1914
• How did Haig play a central role in transforming the army into a war winning force by 1918?

  Was Commander in Chief of BEF, France 1915. His counter parts struggled. French General Nivelle was replaced after his costly offensive. General Falkenhayn was dismissed following German failure at Verdun. Yet Haig remained- guided Allies towards victory in 1918. Under his leadership army grew from 100,000+ 1914 to 2 million+ 1916. Organised army into effective fighting force- bulk of the army had been made up of citizen soldiers, by 1918 many took part in coordinated, all-arms warfare against Germany
• How was Haigs leadership crucial in maintaining morale?

  He maintained morale despite the heavy casualties- an impressive achievement
• Obsession with the big push led to huge casualties for little gain- evidence of Haig's inept leadership?

  Had little option but frontal assaults in hope of achieving a breakthrough. The bulk of his forces were conscripts or volunteers who had very little training and were unable to perform more complex manoeuvres until later. The huge frontal assault on the Somme in 1916 led to 60,000 casualties for Britain on day 1. Total casualties for the British were over 400,000 for an advance of just 7 miles. Continuing into October and November was a disaster- resulted in more needless deaths
• Obsession with the big push led to huge casualties for little gain- evidence of Haig's inept leadership?

  The Allies lost more men than the Germans at the Somme. German casualties were estimated to be around 400,000, allies 500,000
• How were the battles most closely associated with Haig (Somme, Third Ypres, Arras) important in destroying the German army?


  The BEF (that he had a key role in creating) were sent out in 1914 to help France and Belgium defend themselves from the Schlieffen Plan. The reinforcement of around 70000 BEF helped slow down the German advance. The Somme/Third Ypres/Arras did more damage to the Germans than the allies. Losses were huge on both sides, but Allies were better equipped to replace losses. The professional core of the German army was lost at the Somme despite less casualties on their side.
• How is Haig inept from not learning from his mistakes- repatedly using the same tactics?

  Despite the huge losses at the Somme for very little gain, Haig used the same tactic of huge frontal assault in the battle of Passchendaele (Third Ypres). Again, the British suffered 300,000 for a 5 mile advance
• How was it bad that Haig was convinced that attrition would destroy the morale of the Germans and win the war?

  He remained convinced that the German morale would be shattered if the Allies persisted with their war of attrition, perhaps accepting that heavy casualties was a necessity to the path of victory. Generals studied the RJW and this convinced Haig that although there'd be high casualties, the nation with the superior morale would triumph.
• How was it bad that Haig failed to grasp the demands of the new, modern style of warfare?

  Naïve in belief that prelim bombardment prior to Somme would destroy the German front lines. Ordered men to walk across No Mans Land. 30% of shells were duds and the Germans took cover, massively reducing damage they took. The British army only had recent experience in colonial warfare against far inferior enemies- Haig was inexperienced at this type of warfare so they needed time to learn and adapt to the changing demands. Haig did do this- forces key in final German defeat in Hundred Days Offensive.
• How did Haig try to use technology?

  He tried new tech to facilitate a breakthrough from the trench stalemate. He ordered the use of tanks, which although may not have worked effectively at the Somme, were much more effective in later battles such as Cambrai and Amiens
• How might it not have been Haigs 'bad' generalship due to pressure?

  He was pressured to bring forward the Somme offensive against his wishes. The French army was suffering huge losses at Verdun and needed the British to help relieve the pressure by launching an attack on another front
• Why is it unfair to argue Haig should've utilised a step-by-step approach earlier in the war eg creeping barrage?


  Artillery technology advanced during the war to become more consistent and accurate- once these improvements were made, Haig was open to the idea of a creeping barrage instead of preliminary bombardment.