The long and tortuous annals of World Military history had seen nothing comparable to the incidents that occurred during WWI. Known as the ‘War to end all wars’, WWI ended endless amounts lives in the hundreds of thousands. From August 1914 two battlefronts stretched from the far alpines of Switzerland to the channel coast of France and from Ukrainian countryside to the cold Baltic Sea. Offensives had been staged on both fronts, however one was left to prevail and by 1918 both sides saw maximum advances of just six miles up. These events, however still manage to fall within modern day human memory. Some say WWI was a ‘short war Illusion’, going extremely overtime with thousands being killed for no reason due to gastly orders given by Generals.
…show more content…
The major ‘bump in the road’ of this objective was that an advance would only be very short. Attacking soldiers would find themselves to be be amongst others fighting in an enemy trench system. As early as 1915 british leaders came and decided on a plan that would include large artillery barrages that would intend to dismantle enormous sections of fixed defenses and destroy enemy barbed wire. For example in the Somme these new tactics came to fruition. The movement called “The Creeping Barrage” was used and a creeping barrage involved artillery fire moving forward in stages just ahead of the advancing infantry. This enabled the enemy to move 50m per minute (with accurate artillery fire) whilst in the hope of capturing enemy trenches. However, thousands upon thousands of men were killed as a result of these “Creeping Barrages”, and it began to be discussed whether methods used by Field Marshals, e.g. Douglas Haig, were in fact invalid or not right for the battle field. At the Battle of Passchendaele, the moral came to light. When a Canadian Corps Commander, Arthur Currie, about the tactics used at Passchendaele he replied “It's suicidal. I will not waste 16,000 good soldiers on such a hopeless objective" and then did as he was told”. However some view Haig’s battlefield tactics in a different way. “The military historian, Gary Sheffield, called this, the so-called Hundred …show more content…
Outcomes usually either resulted in huge amounts of human casualties and deaths. Human life per battles was in between 220,000 and 400,000 lives (per army - all together around 640,000 to 800,00 lives per battle) whereas casualties all together where around 400,000 soldiers. Both sides would suffer huge losses of human life. Which comes to the question in many people's minds, ‘Did all these lives go to waste? How many lives could’ve been saved if circumstances were better?’ Or in another sense, ‘were all these lives a sacrifice for the greater good? Were their deaths a helping hand to make sure that the british won the war?’. In my opinion I believe that these deaths were a waste. I believe they helped did in fact were a result of terrible orders due to the British War leaders. So, therefore methods were ineffective. Thus, I believe that the phrase ‘Lions led by Donkeys’ is a true and accurate representation of my view when looking at WWI
The major ‘bump in the road’ of this objective was that an advance would only be very short. Attacking soldiers would find themselves to be be amongst others fighting in an enemy trench system. As early as 1915 british leaders came and decided on a plan that would include large artillery barrages that would intend to dismantle enormous sections of fixed defenses and destroy enemy barbed wire. For example in the Somme these new tactics came to fruition. The movement called “The Creeping Barrage” was used and a creeping barrage involved artillery fire moving forward in stages just ahead of the advancing infantry. This enabled the enemy to move 50m per minute (with accurate artillery fire) whilst in the hope of capturing enemy trenches. However, thousands upon thousands of men were killed as a result of these “Creeping Barrages”, and it began to be discussed whether methods used by Field Marshals, e.g. Douglas Haig, were in fact invalid or not right for the battle field. At the Battle of Passchendaele, the moral came to light. When a Canadian Corps Commander, Arthur Currie, about the tactics used at Passchendaele he replied “It's suicidal. I will not waste 16,000 good soldiers on such a hopeless objective" and then did as he was told”. However some view Haig’s battlefield tactics in a different way. “The military historian, Gary Sheffield, called this, the so-called Hundred …show more content…
Outcomes usually either resulted in huge amounts of human casualties and deaths. Human life per battles was in between 220,000 and 400,000 lives (per army - all together around 640,000 to 800,00 lives per battle) whereas casualties all together where around 400,000 soldiers. Both sides would suffer huge losses of human life. Which comes to the question in many people's minds, ‘Did all these lives go to waste? How many lives could’ve been saved if circumstances were better?’ Or in another sense, ‘were all these lives a sacrifice for the greater good? Were their deaths a helping hand to make sure that the british won the war?’. In my opinion I believe that these deaths were a waste. I believe they helped did in fact were a result of terrible orders due to the British War leaders. So, therefore methods were ineffective. Thus, I believe that the phrase ‘Lions led by Donkeys’ is a true and accurate representation of my view when looking at WWI