Likely the most poignant wildcat strike in history. A beautiful scene.
Haig’s contribution seems surprisingly positive so far, although I’ll admit that my only real sense of the man is the fact that I frequently hear people put the word “Butcher” before his name whenever it comes up in conversation. (Which is not all that often…)
Having the Winter Offensive meant I thought I'd lost my chance for it (as I doubt it would happen Christmas 1912). Luckily, I found myself with space in this chapter.
I'm very much of the revisionist school that disagrees with the 'Lambs Led By Lions' (EDIT: Lions Led By Lambs, dammit. Thank you,
@TheButterflyComposer) view of WWI generalship that's been the prevailing popular perception since at least the '60s. Hopefully Searle-Wilson is getting across that revisionist viewpoint; the generals were no more competent or incompetent than in any other war. However, unlike generals before and after, they had never had the chance to really test out the new weapons of war built between 1870 and 1914 so, when war did break out, it turned out that every tactic they had was obsolete. They had to invent modern warfare on the fly, and even then it somewhat required offensive technology catching up to defensive technology for the final breakthrough.
That is much better than OTL. Especially for Belgium. Lille on the other hand can't catch a break. Both in a salient for their side, and next to one on the enemies. Good grief. Lots and lots of fighting going to occur there over the next few years.
This is quite encouraging as a development. Hopefully working together allows them to take full advantage of being a pair of nations at war with just one (the Italian front presumably also just has Italians on it. Can't see germans showing up there yet...or ever).
So mostly positive so far in the war. Despite the huge loss of life, of course. No amerfians though...which is a little concerning for everyone involved. When are they coming, how many and where is going to be the big question of 1912.
Problem ITTL is the other fronts. They're bigger and with (marginally) more competent opposite sides than IOTL.
And yes, Lille is very much screwed.
1912 may be a write-off on that front, as the election, which is limiting Teddy's room to manoeuvre, isn't until November.
So if I understand this correctly, one British crops went south and split amongst the two fronts while a British army went into the flanders? Or were the corps split from the ones in Flanders?
You are correct. Of the pre-war, 250,000-man BEF, roughly 4/5ths are in Flanders, while Haig's Corps is split between the Spanish and Italian Fronts.
At first I thought "Roermonde" was the French spelling but it's not, so what is that extra e there? And I cannot help but notice that the Dutch-Belgian border is missing except for a part in southern Limburg. But does this mean that Fortress Holland just gets overran by the Germans?
Combine Dutch involvement with a possibly stronger Flemish Movement and I can see a real basis for some Interbellum Greater Dutch movement forming. Perhaps a Verdinaso that is active on both sides of the border.
Honestly, I have no idea why the map doesn't include the Dutch-Belgian border when it includes all the others.
It's certainly a possibility.
This military Cerberus seems to be working acceptably well. I do hope the politicians stay out of the chain of command and that none of these generals develop 'ambitions'. As an American I am drawn to American examples: what Entente commanders in France need is the mindset of an Eisenhower, not a MacArthur. Mildness in adversity, cheerful willingness to do what can be done with the resources at hand, willingness to strike or hold hard at need, and respect rather than disdain for allies - that's the ticket. Oh, and the strategic gifts of a Montgomery and the tactical ability of a Hobbs or an Allen wouldn't go amiss, while we are wishing. I know, I'm using WW2 generals as examples... but equipment and environment made it so hard for an Allied general of WW1 to have a positive impact.
Still, the prospect of a million armed men coming to hang them seems to have concentrated the minds of senior commanders quite wonderfully. Let us hope that success, however modest, and failure, however large, do not break apart what this present peril has welded together.
Indeed. As I was saying to Densley, I very much fall into the camp that thinks WWI generals had an impossible job.
I haven't yet decided which way the AEF Commander will go (you can tell by the fact I haven't even decided who it is), but they may make or break this arrangement with their non-/participation.
After last update I wouldn't be surprised if the southern fronts remain a mutually amiable stalemate. The Entente has few men to spare for the Alps and Pyrenees (for now), while their enemies aren't keen for all-out mountain warfare, and seeing what's happening in Flanders, they're probably right.
On the other hand, it may be politically more palatable to go for the weaker Pact Powers, especially if Flanders proves as bloody going forward as it has so far. This was, after all, the logic for the Italian Front and Gallipoli IOTL.
Well...it would be actually quite beneficial for both Italians and the entente, both for preservation of life and diplomatic reasons post war...but the truces never lasted very long OTL. It is very difficult to hold truces when all you need to do (as a general) is keep the guns further back firing.
boom, boom, boom, boom, boom -
The German Guns, Pvt Baldrick
One of the most difficult tasks in training soldiers is to get them to actually kill. Some never manage it - they can't make a bayonet attack, for example. And it is well known that many soldiers never fire a weapon in combat. So part of training soldiers is to depersonalize the enemy... a truce can lead to your soldiers thinking the other fellows are nice chaps and make the job of killing them harder.
The other problem is when this training works too well, which tends to happen with more 'elite's or specialised units, who then end up going nuts and don't care about who they're killing. A lot of high profile assassinations in US history were carried out by US marines for example. And after the US civil war (the first properly industrial war) the effects of this disassociation skyrocketed, much like every modern war since.
One of the more subtle (well, comparatively) ways to do this is what the First Marine Recon apparently does. In as many situations as possible, including as a substitute for 'yes, sir', have the men shout 'KILL!' Recon veteran Rudy Reyes talks about this in
Once Upon A Time in Iraq, and you can see it in
Generation Kill, the adaptation of Evan Wright's book about being embedded with them during the invasion.
It also becomes more necessary the more war becomes an aberration or the purview of a professional few, as the average person grows up less and less desensitized to violence. I'm no psychologist, but I would imagine it also increases the dissociation experienced in modern war, as it becomes more and more of a break from regular life.
With the war slowing down all over France I wonder how the Kaiser Pact will manage to resist for seven more years once the Americans arrive, especially given that Germany itself is dealing with two fronts; though I guess that Austria and Russia's performance will be less than stellar.
Austria, and particularly Russia, are the key here. If Germany breaks them before the Entente can break Italy and Spain, they will have a breadbasket in Ukraine and only one front to fight on.
This will no doubt portend to be excellent BBB. So I'm just dropping in now to signal my desire to catch up with this AAR.
Cheers!
Thanks! Happy to have you on board.
I think I said this in my H1 ACA Ballot, but
Empire for Liberty is great, and gives me the warm fuzzies. Happy to see it back, even if the hiatus was for an even more joyous reason.