The Great War And Modern Memory - Blog Day Afternoon Posted by Jeff (Tuesday November 09 2004 @ 06:07PM EST)

Prag and I read books about the Great War. He seems more concerned for its causes than its wake. Luckily for him, whole forests have been dropped in an effort to explain it. My interest lies in the experience of war, for the men who fought it and the thoughts they carried from the trenches. If Modernism fissured the Proud Tower, then Flemish mud hastened its fall. Whatever caused men to raise the Guns of August no longer pushed them across no-man's land at the Somme. Victorian faith in progress was shattered by the violence. The great houses of Europe were each greatly shaken or destroyed. Realism's crisp mirror lay in tiny, broken shards. My concern is for the cast of Götterdämmerung, for those who toiled in mud and cold and stench of death, for the women they left behind to gravely count the hours. Their generals climbed to lofty heights in the era before the fall. Each was brutish, senseless and stupid. They cared little for the populist movements beneath their feet. The American Civil War was also brutish, senseless and stupid, but in time it produced real genius at the top. I can think of no Great War general or Admiral who fits that bill. They were Romantics to the end. If Ludendorff had been killed upon arrival in the West, then I may have found him brilliant. Instead he lived to prove himself brutish, senseless and stupid, too. The men who survived the meat grinder would never be the same. They extracted concessions, commandeered power or toppled governments. Churchill, Hitler, Petain, de Gaulle, Mussolini and Truman emerged from the trenches of the First World War to guide their nations in the Second. The wives and mothers who lost husbands and sons would never be the same. They would not go back to the kitchen without a fuss. Twenty-four Western nations granted universal suffrage during or immediately after the war. A generation carried the trauma of war to letters, stone, film and canvas and wholey transformed the arts. My recommended reading list: The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman Great War and Modern Memory by Paul Fussel The Rites of Spring: The Great War and the Birth of the Modern Age by Modris Eksteins Testament of Youth by Vera Brittain All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Remarque Memoirs of a Fox-Hunting Man by Siegfried Sassoon A Farewell To Arms by Ernest Hemingway

< And So It Goes | Armistice Day >

By Biff (Wednesday November 10 2004 @ 08:09AM EST)

The famed Desert Fox came out of the meatgrinder. I would rank him as brilliant in the scheme of things. Patton was wounded in the Meuse-Argonne Offensive and was certainly instrumental in the formation and founding of the US Armored School and forces. Was he brilliant or genius material? On a strategic and operational level, quite possibly. On a tactical level or by the lowly ground pounder-probably not. Mind you, both of these examples were line officers at the time so they might not hit your filter of "Great War generals or admirals". However, both of them certainly displayed a special something in the war to follow.

[ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Wednesday November 10 2004 @ 08:36AM EST) I agree with you, Biff. Unfortunately they never formulated campaign strategy. Hamilton and Churchill proved to be two of the war's biggest dunderheads. Yet Churchill redeemed himself by fighting in the trenches from 1915 to 1916 and through his excellent leadership during the Second World War. Pig-headed to the end, he refused to acknowledge any errors of judgement in the Dardanelles. [ reply | parent ]

By Biff (Wednesday November 10 2004 @ 08:46AM EST) Interesting to note was Churchill's belief in armored vehicles. He was a huge proponent of the use of armored cars, even though he was a member of the Naval board. They proved their value once, then were banished to the Middle Eastern theater of operations. Forward thinking-yes. Unfortunately, he was dealing with some that still believed a charge by mounted hussars and lancers would win the day. [ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Wednesday November 10 2004 @ 08:49AM EST) I think he developed that passion after the emerged from the trenches and not from the comfy office of Admiralty. [ reply | parent ]

By Biff (Wednesday November 10 2004 @ 08:51AM EST) Jeff, I believe he developed his love of the armored vehicle in 1914, well before his jaunt in the trenches. I will research this at home. [ reply | parent ]

By Biff (Wednesday November 10 2004 @ 04:23PM EST) Churchill sent the memo to Lord Kitchner in January 1915. Kitchner tabled the memo, but Churchill proceeded and formed a committee. He ordered 15 armored cars fitted with tracks. It is interesting to note that Churchill was in charge of the Royal Naval Air Service at the time. [ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Wednesday November 10 2004 @ 04:31PM EST) For whom and for what purpose did he order them? [ reply | parent ]

By Biff (Wednesday November 10 2004 @ 04:39PM EST) Apparently, he undertook the action on his own accord. The "landship" was to "cross withering fire and crush wire". He stated that 40 to 50 of these machines could advance in the face of enemy fire and cross the trenches. Obviously, breaking the deadlock that was already starting to take place. Churchill then passed the idea through the Landship Committee where the first design for a modern tank was drawn up. Capable of speeds of up to a whopping 4 MPH. Anyway, there it is. BTW-if you want a fine tactical level game on WWI and its innovations (tanks, flamethrowers, machine guns, etc.) I would recommend "Landships" by Clash of Arms Games from Phoenixville. [ reply | parent ]

By The Pragmatist (Wednesday November 10 2004 @ 08:41PM EST) Do you have any experience with Clash of Arms Naval games? Most of my recent gaming experience is Napoleonic and Korean (of all things) but I've been eyeing up a number of Clash of Arms offerings. Of course, that implies I'll find the time to play them. [ reply | parent ]

By Biff (Wednesday November 10 2004 @ 09:47PM EST) Prag, To be honest, I stick mostly with Multiman Publishing's "Advanced Squad Leader". I think the finest wargame ever made. I enjoy tactical level games and that is the best I've seen to date. I have played two Clash of Arms games. Landships is my favorite WWI title. I would recommend it. I don't have the other title handy, but it is a Revy War game. Pretty good stuff. Shoot me an email if you have any questions. I have a boatload of titles from multiple eras. I'd be glad to tell you my faves. I have been eyeing The Gamers offering on the Korean War. Their series on that level is fantastic. [ reply | parent ]

By Biff (Wednesday November 10 2004 @ 08:26AM EST)

An interesting study would be to see in what regard we would hold generals Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, etc. if they were ranking officers in the current military. Grant was referred to as "The Butcher" by the press beginning with his Overland campaign in 1864. In an era where any blood shed by the military receives a great deal of ink, how long would he last today even providing successful results? Sherman was a huge proponent of total war, as was Sheridan when he swept through the Valley in 1864. How would they be viewed, once again using the filter that they were highly successful? Unfortunately for Grant, his best days were behind him. Politics obviously didn't suit him well. Sheridan continued his policy of total war against the Native Americans. Were these great leaders?

[ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Wednesday November 10 2004 @ 08:48AM EST) Allow me to address this with a ploy I rarely use, a rhetorical question. Worse, it's an ahistorical rhetorical question. If Grant had commanded the Army of the Potomac from the beginning, would there have been greater or fewer total casualties in the American Civil War? With regard to ripping these men out of the 19th Century and setting them in command in Iraq or Afghanistan, they'd be perfect as long as they were infused with the missing 139 years of weapons technology, military tactics, strategies and logistics. Without that, it's hard to imagine that Grant would consider to call in airstrikes. [ reply | parent ]

By Biff (Wednesday November 10 2004 @ 08:56AM EST) Jeff, An interesting question. Had Grant commanded the AoP, who would have lead the western armies and successfully broken the back of the Confederacy in that theater? Your rhetorical question leads to more questions along the same lines. I posed it more of a thought on their personalities. Grant very much hated to see the casualty lists. However, he realized it was a means to an end. Take Cold Harbor out of the equation and most of his assaults were "needed". As an answer to your question in regards to higher casualties-I'm sure there would have been. He certainly would not have bogged down around Richmond in the summer of 1862. He would not have retreated in the aftermath of victory after victory, ala McClellan. Again-ahistorical topic, but I think interesting. [ reply | parent ]

By The Pragmatist (Wednesday November 10 2004 @ 09:20AM EST) Death in many forms was more prevalent in that era. We are crushed at considering the death of a child, yet it would not be unusual for most parents to have experienced it in the 19th century. Grant I would consider a great commander, assuming the American way of war with emphasis on firepower, attrition and logistics. Some people figure out a system and make it work for them. Sherman was more revolutionary with his refusal to be hamstrung by logistics and his forcing of rapid decision making on his opponents while disrupting their ability to gather intelligence of their situation. Patton was a worthy heir to Sherman when he raced the Third Army across Europe. Westmoreland was the modern Grant when he bet on a war of attrition and massive firepower in Vietnam. That is unfair to Grant, because I think in any era I would bet that he would figure out the key leverage points. And he certainly nurtured the careers of many effective officers. [ reply | parent ]

By Biff (Wednesday November 10 2004 @ 09:29AM EST) I concur on death in the 19th century. It was an altogether different animal, not industry, as it is today. Sherman certainly benefitted from opposing an army, that while dangerous, was not on par with the ANV. The Western rebel armies lacked steadiness in the high ranks while being blessed with incredibly gifted divisional and brigade commanders. Patrick Cleburne was truly one of the finest leaders on either side during the war. I believe a large majority of the success achieved by Grant/Sherman/Thomas/etc was due to the fact that the had the full support of the administration. They showed resolve and were not cowed by a defeat. Many Fed commanders on both fronts in the early stages of the war took one on the chin and buckled. Grant showed his mettle at Shiloh on the first night when he told Sherman, "We had the Devil's own day today. We'll lick'em tomorrow." McClellan, Rosecrans or others would've been pulling troops across the river to safety. [ reply | parent ]

By Biff (Wednesday November 10 2004 @ 09:33AM EST) Pragmatist, I forgot to state that I agree fully with your comment about Grant backing the careers of successful officers. You can go down the list and see that the western armies developed many high ranking officers of great quality. The AoP suffered from being to close to the capital. Far too many appointees or friends of cabinet members remained with their commands for too long. By the time Gettsyburg rolled around, the corps level officers were starting to shape up. I believe the dreary climate in the AoP HQ affected the performance of many officers. Heck, even Uh Oh Howard was a minor success once he went West. [ reply | parent ]

By The Pragmatist (Wednesday November 10 2004 @ 10:33AM EST) Quite right on the Army of the West (which I understand held that name from the immediate post-Revolutionary period around the time that General Wayne took over after the loss of over 1000 American soldiers on the Ohio Frontier under St. Clair.) I remember reading the intro to Col. John Elting's great work on Napoleon's Grand Armee, Swords Around a Throne and he he starts off talking about great armies that have passed through history...G. Adoplphus Swedes, Cromwell's 'Ironsides' Washington's Continentals, Lee's Butternut Ranks, Thomas's Army of the Cumberland. That one brought me up short. He went on to list Rommel, Patton, etc. I recognized everyone except Thomas. I've since repaired the gap, but I had never given proper due to those forces except for Grant but that seemed only in preparation for leading the AoP. I think you're correct on the proximity to Washington being a problem for the first commanders of the AoP. Another note with regard to George Thomas, he was a Virginian who stood with the Union. [ reply | parent ]

By Biff (Wednesday November 10 2004 @ 11:50AM EST) For a very good work on the Atlanta Campaign try Albert Castel's book "Decision in the West". This doesn't cover either of Thomas' shining moments at Chickamauga or Nashville. However, it does set the stage for the rise of the Army of the Cumberland, Army of the Ohio and the Army of Tennessee as the premier bodies for the Union. Thomas was a dull man but a dependable leader. Unflappable in a crisis. He ranks highly in the wests list of fine leaders-Logan, Schofield, McPherson, etc. [ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Wednesday November 10 2004 @ 09:37AM EST) I agree. In any era, Grant would bear his rooks on the backward pawn. [ reply | parent ]

By Biff (Wednesday November 10 2004 @ 08:51AM EST)

Some other WWI must reads: "Eye Deep in Hell" by John Ellis "Death's Men" by Denis Winter "In Flanders Fields" by Leon Wolff I have a copy of the first and was able to score the second via inter-library loan. I highly recommend the first. It is the "Hardtack and Coffee" of the First World War.

[ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Wednesday November 10 2004 @ 09:10AM EST) "Death's Men" is very much on my reading list. I've been trying to find a nice first edition. On a more personal level, I'd like to know if Denis and Jay Winter are related. The latter wrote Sites of Memory, Sites of Mourning. [ reply | parent ]

By The Pragmatist (Wednesday November 10 2004 @ 09:19AM EST) I don't know about Denis and Jay either, but I am glad to have a copy of Jay's Capital Cities at War a social analysis of life in London, Paris and Berlin in the years 1914-1919. [ reply | parent ]

By Biff (Wednesday November 10 2004 @ 09:20AM EST) Here is a site-"Trenches on the Web". Not really an eye-candy site, but has a pretty good reading list and some great photos, pieces of art. http://www.worldwar1.com/ No idea on the "brothers" Winter. [ reply | parent ]

By Gabba Gabba (Wednesday November 10 2004 @ 04:35PM EST)

This blog is entertaining but today Jeff, Biff and Prag took bordom to new levels

[ reply | parent ]

Post a Comment

Name: Email: URL   Remember my information (uses cookies)   I would rather be anonymous Comment: * HTML tags are allowed. * Your email will not be made public. * LINK SPAM WILL BE DELETED!