The German Offensives of 1918

[RodB]

I'm up to page 128 and am a little disappointed. Kitchen several times portrays Haig as close to panic and demanding that Foch prop him up with more French divisions or else he will withdraw to the coast. Foch refused most times. But I feel that Haig was esentially a political general and his decisions and communications need to be considered in that light - the political cohesion between the allies (and the associated power) was even more important than the military. So to make sense of Haig we need to consider Lloyd George, Clemenceau, Wilson and what they were saying to each other. I don't get any sense of that from this book. Haig needed to combat any potential political or military defeatism in France, which may have been likely given the 1917 disaster and the casualties France had already sustained, so maybe his demands should be interpreted in that light rather than straightforward military thinking ?

Also Kitchen blames Ludendorff for several strategic blunders, in pursuing easy lines of advance after partial breakthroughs rather than sticking to the master plan, which Kitchen believes was a drive west to Amiens. But to me this is the benefit of hindsight. I don't get a sense of what information Ludendorff had to work with on the ground at the time. As far as I can make out the Kaiserschlacht was the largest and most complex single military campaign in history to date. The German army was near exhaustion and had to advance over difficult terrain. Ludendorff lacked field radios, air supremacy, mechanised transport. He was forced to act early before the Americans swamped him with numbers. He was switching from a defensive to offensive doctrine. To me what he and his men achieved was brilliant in the circumstances, and it would have taken an Einstein and a fortune teller to instantly spot the correct solution to every problem.

any comments ? Haig and Ludendorff both smarter than Kitchen gives them credit for ?

[Paul Hederer]

Rod,

Ludendorff made some errors and his conduct of the 1918 campaign and comes in for a lot of criticism ranging from its execution to its goals. It's interesting what you mention about the lack of mechanised transport--again a criticism, much the same as the Schlieffen Plan, was that the 1918 offensives were simply too ambitious considering the logistic and transport capabilities of the time.

The tactical performance of the German army in 1918 was excellent. The operational and strategic aspects left a lot to be desired. Much has been written on this subject, the substitution of operational and tactical art for strategy in the German forces, both before and during the war.

I think Ludendorff deserves most of the criticsm he comes in for in relation to 1918.

Paul

[Chris_Baker]

I began to read this while on a train journey this week. I was on my way to do a bit more research on my MA dissertation, which is on the Supreme War Council. It will not surprise you that I now know quite a bit about the Allied strategies developed to face the (obviously coming) German offensive, as well as the roles and attitudes of the players. The opening chapters, before you get to the fighting, I found so poor I had to give up. According to the author, "Haig seems to have been blissfully unaware of the danger". I am sorry, but the slightest examination of documentary evidence makes this a nonsense.

The coverage of the actual fight is better but, as you say, the characterisation of the leaders on both sides is of caricature, not real people.

[Alan Tucker]

I found this a very poorly written book where it is very easy to get lost in a lot of detail with a lack of overview to give the reader a compass to navigate by.

[truthergw]

I read this early on and had to unlearn a lot of the notions it gave me. I still like it as a description of the actions. I think it is an example of an author framing a hypothesis then collecting evidence which supports it. Very tempting, very easy and the cause of lots of discussion .

[RodB]

I got the feeling from the book so far that the failure of German 17th Army to make progress against British 3rd Army led to Ludendorff bypassing the problem by heading both SW and NE. Kitchen seems to imply this was his mistake, that he should have reinforced 17th Army to keep it advancing. But if this was the key issue, very little is actually devoted to why 17th Army got stuck or examining Ludendorff's decisionmaking. Perhaps the definitive book would have to be about 1000 pages to do justice to the strategic complexities and the inputs to all the decisionmaking ?

[truthergw]

RodB, as you say, a very complex situation and one where political matters were as important as military. It has been discussed at length and in some depth on forum but the dicussions tend to be scattered over a lot of different threads. Hard to bring up on a search.

[Len Trim]

I was on my way to do a bit more research on my MA dissertation, which is on the Supreme War Council.

I would love to know which university you are doing your MA with. I am aware of the one at Lancaster, but no other as yet. Interested as I may do one when I retire in a few (4/6) years.

Len

[Chris_Baker]

Len, it is at the Centre for First World War Studies at the University of Birmingham.

[Len Trim]

Len, it is at the Centre for First World War Studies at the University of Birmingham.

Thanks for the quick reply Chris. I will go and have a study of their website.

I am used to distance learning as that is how I got my original degree via the Open University so that attracted me to the Lancaster one, but one way or another I intend to do more work on WW1.

Currently trying to increase my knowledge of WW2 as I now teach it at Advanced Higher level, but somehow despite trips to Normandy etc. it just does not grab me the way WW1 does. This despite the fact I was a paratrooper in the seventies and played a bit part in making 'A Bridge too Far' and attended memorial services at Arnhem and met some of the old veterans.

My wife says that all this war study is unhealthy whether it is WW1 or WW2 that is being studied

Len

[Greenwoodman]

Looking back to when I read this (some time ago), I would agree with most of what's been written. Poor start, and then a lot of detail. But as it was detail I wanted, that was pretty good for me.