The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #156239   Message #3687321
Posted By: Keith A of Hertford
20-Dec-14 - 05:10 AM
Thread Name: BS: I am not an historian but........
Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
I'm done here, unless you are prepared to produce proof of your claims of support -

I am Jim.
I have just shown that Macmillan supports all my three points.
Here is another from my long list of historians, William Philpott.

Were the Allied generals of 1914 unable to adapt to the evolving nature of war?
This is one of those long-standing myths about First World War commanders. Because the battles often took place in the same areas, people assume the generals were just repeating the same mistakes. That's far from what happened; they actually adapted very quickly. In 1915 the generals engaged with the tactical problems of fighting on entrenched battlefield. In 1916 they took those models and applied them to the bigger question of how to conduct a long, drawn-out battle to engage and defeat the enemy's army. In 1917 they were able to retrain their armies in new techniques, which allowed them to maneuver more effectively and ultimately win the war in 1918.

When you look at the way the armies were organized and equipped, the way the defense had to adapt to new offensive techniques combining infantry, artillery and new technologies such as aircraft, tanks and gas, you see that the warfare of 1917 was very different from that of 1915. Commanders came to grips with the problems and found solutions."

"I think the decisive factors were the Allies' development of the right techniques for taking on and beating the German army, and Allied superiority in munitions, weaponry and doctrine."

"They were willing to go through the conflict and make the sacrifice for their belief, which would result in a better world. In the early 1920s the Allied nations felt they achieved something of that goal; it was only with the advent of the Great Depression and the reappearance of belligerent nationalism and rearmament that the public attitude about the war began to sour. The memory of the war that we have is the memory of the 1930s refracted through the lens of World War II. I've tried to tell the story of the conflict from the mindset of those who participated at the time rather than through the lens of hindsight."

http://www.historynet.com/interview-with-world-war-i-historian-william-philpott.htm