Evaluating The Armies And Generals Of 1914

[firefly1]

.

 

Is there a decent biography of David Lloyd George which manages to unpick the lies, self-deception and the "truth" ?

[MiloMorai]

So he said it twenty years after the event in a self-serving memoir then.

 

BillB

 

 

It was printed 20 years after the event. Who knows when he said it.

[BillB]

 

So he said it twenty years after the event in a self-serving memoir then.

 

BillB

 

 

It was printed 20 years after the event. Who knows when he said it.

 

Precisely. Or even if he said it at all.

 

BillB

[T19]

Well the actions of the Canadian Corps seemsto bear witness to what he said.

I seem to recall some German commander saying something similar

[Archie Pellagio]

It's funny how often our enemies give us nicknames that effectively say "OMG we suck and they're so badass!" Yet we generally don't return the favour and call them disparaging names... Damn western arrogance!

Edited September 21, 2014 by Archie Pellagio

[Ken Estes]

Seems like its more ourselves doing it to us these days.

[T19]

We gave similar names to the paratroops at monte casino

[baboon6]

Well the actions of the Canadian Corps seemsto bear witness to what he said.

I seem to recall some German commander saying something similar

The Canadian Corps certainly had a very good reputation. But so did certain other formations.

[Dave Clark]

.

 

Is there a decent biography of David Lloyd George which manages to unpick the lies, self-deception and the "truth" ?

 

Not directly a biography of LG but a fascinating description of the relationship between him and Churchill

 

Toye, Richard. Lloyd George & Churchill: Rivals for Greatness. Macmillan, London, 2007. ISBN 1-4050-4896-4

 

Stanley Baldwin remarked on the pair, "L.G. was born a cad and never forgot it; Winston was born a gentleman and never remembered it."

[MiloMorai]

 

Well the actions of the Canadian Corps seemsto bear witness to what he said.

I seem to recall some German commander saying something similar

The Canadian Corps certainly had a very good reputation. But so did certain other formations.

 

 

yes, the Ladies from Hell.

[TonyE]

Fighting 69th!

[Murph]

So, the debacle in Iraq (Mesopotamia), who was to blame? The commander, the politicians, the troops, or were the German-Turkish armies that good? Townsend appears to be quite the git, and incompetent, and HMG gave him a knighthood while living the life of ease in Istanbul while his troops starved in Turkish prisons. That seems to be the pattern with HMG, promote, award, give accolades to the incompetents, fire the good ones (and later ignore them), and then laud the uselessly slaughtered troops who died at the hands of the incompetent generals/politicians. D@mn, sounds a lot like the modern US military as well.

[baboon6]

So, the debacle in Iraq (Mesopotamia), who was to blame? The commander, the politicians, the troops, or were the German-Turkish armies that good? Townsend appears to be quite the git, and incompetent, and HMG gave him a knighthood while living the life of ease in Istanbul while his troops starved in Turkish prisons. That seems to be the pattern with HMG, promote, award, give accolades to the incompetents, fire the good ones (and later ignore them), and then laud the uselessly slaughtered troops who died at the hands of the incompetent generals/politicians. D@mn, sounds a lot like the modern US military as well.

 

Well I don't know if you can say " the uselessly slaughtered troops", Britain WAS on the winning side and arguably played the biggest role in defeating Germany, though of course it couldn't have been done without France and the US too. Were casualties too heavy? Undoubtedly. Could they have been reduced? Probably. Did those men die for nothing? I would say not.

[Ken Estes]

The Kut expedition paved the way for the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire and also secured the oil resources of soon-defined Kuwait for the RN.

[rohala]

Britain WAS on the winning side and arguably played the biggest role in defeating Germany, though of course it couldn't have been done without France and the US too.

How exactly did Britain play "the biggest role in defeating Germany"? I don't have hard numbers about economy and production in my hands (so if you do, please provide) but it's pretty clear that France's military effort was much greater than Britain's.

[baboon6]

 

Britain WAS on the winning side and arguably played the biggest role in defeating Germany, though of course it couldn't have been done without France and the US too.

How exactly did Britain play "the biggest role in defeating Germany"? I don't have hard numbers about economy and production in my hands (so if you do, please provide) but it's pretty clear that France's military effort was much greater than Britain's.

True, France's contribution was larger in terms of manpower and probably in production too, but after the French mutinies of 1917 Britain at least for a while took over the major offensive role on the Western Front. Much of the mining and industrial areas of France had been taken over by the Germans so were not part of France's war effort. There was also of course the Royal Navy's role in the blockade of Germany and in escorting convoys across the Atlantic without which defeating Germany would have been much harder.

 

But yes, I didn't exactly think that through entirely before posting, " a major role in defeating Germany" might be a better way of putting it. I stand by my comments though on the deaths not being in vain.

[baboon6]

 

 

Well the actions of the Canadian Corps seemsto bear witness to what he said.

I seem to recall some German commander saying something similar

 

The Canadian Corps certainly had a very good reputation. But so did certain other formations.

yes, the Ladies from Hell.

Besides 51st Highland Div, Guards and 29th Divs seem to come up quite a lot when discussing which were the best British divisions on the Western Front. There is some debate though as to who the other ones were. This article is quite interesting.

 

http://www.westernfrontassociation.com/great-war-on-land/britain-allies/2323-divisional-elitism-and-the-shlm-project-.html

 

EDITED TO ADD-

 

But perhaps the worth of certain divisions or corps is not as important as how the British Armies in France had by 1918 become a true weapons system in which infantry, artillery, cavalry, tanks, engineers, logistics, the Air Force, etc all worked effectively together. This is pointed out by Gary Sheffield in his great book Forgotten Victory which I am reading at the moment.

Edited October 8, 2014 by baboon6