...compared to the senior army leadership of the Allies (Britain, France, Russia and the US)?
The "An aside on Casualties" thread got me thinking. If you were to focus in on the General Staff ( I would include the Heeresgruppe level and above in this question -- even though not everyone at the Heeresgruppe level was actually part of the "General Staff") -- how effective were they at accomplishing the tasks assigned to them when compared to their opponents.
1) Development of strategy?
2) Development of the Army's infrastructure -- men, material, technologies, etc?
3) Execution of strategy -- logistics, adaptation to changes in situation, etc?
How Effective was the German General staff...
Re: How Effective was the German General staff...
Wow! 726 views and not a nibble. I'll throw out the conventional wisdom and say that the German General Staff were best of the bunch.
Strategy? Yes, they had a plan, and pretty much all of the moving pieces in place for the start of the war. Molke's advocating and decision to go for the two front strategy (Aufmarsch II West) was most likely more of a bad political decision rather than a General Staff demerit. But then the German political leadship was lacking in a number of glaring cases. The General Staff had 3 plans ready, the error was potentially picking the wrong one. The big demerit for the German General Staff was for taking their eye off the ball and pivoting too soon towards the south in France in the Fall of 1914. Their plan also covered the Eastern front. Until the Battle of the Marne, they were pretty much checking all of the boxes. They gave up ground in the East, but that was expected. Troops were fed and equipped (with a few notable units such as the Seebattalion and the Cavalry not having Goolash Kannonen, but this was rectified. But in general, all of the front-line and support units knew what they had to do, and had the resources to do it.
The Entente on the other hand was not as well prepared. The British hadn't identified the number of troops needed, and as a result took a year or more to field adequate forces, even though the forces that they had were well trained and equipped. Fundamentally it's not clear to me (and I have not researched this) that the British really hadn't a good idea what they were going to be fighting against before their troops landed in France. Failure to plan is a plan to fail as they say. The French knew that the Germans were coming and should have been ready, but still there was chaos in the logistics of outfitting the troops and getting them in front of the Germans. The plans for feeding the troops once they were in the field also didn't seemed to be well thought out.
1915-1918 The German General Staff still managed to keep all of the balls in the air on both fronts, and focus their resources to knock a member of the allies out of the war each year. The big marks that I would put against them would be the failure to grasp the value of tanks. They did do a good job rolling out (identify resources, train equip and get them to the front) storm troops though.
The Russian General Staff seemed to be a mixed bag. They seemed more effective then expected initially in getting the army into the field quickly, but constant infighting eroded their effectiveness. There didn't seem to be a unity of vision. That and it seems an almost constant failure to appreciate the value of their troops, which resulted in growing losses.
Sure they are "off the cuff" opinions, but prove me wrong!
Strategy? Yes, they had a plan, and pretty much all of the moving pieces in place for the start of the war. Molke's advocating and decision to go for the two front strategy (Aufmarsch II West) was most likely more of a bad political decision rather than a General Staff demerit. But then the German political leadship was lacking in a number of glaring cases. The General Staff had 3 plans ready, the error was potentially picking the wrong one. The big demerit for the German General Staff was for taking their eye off the ball and pivoting too soon towards the south in France in the Fall of 1914. Their plan also covered the Eastern front. Until the Battle of the Marne, they were pretty much checking all of the boxes. They gave up ground in the East, but that was expected. Troops were fed and equipped (with a few notable units such as the Seebattalion and the Cavalry not having Goolash Kannonen, but this was rectified. But in general, all of the front-line and support units knew what they had to do, and had the resources to do it.
The Entente on the other hand was not as well prepared. The British hadn't identified the number of troops needed, and as a result took a year or more to field adequate forces, even though the forces that they had were well trained and equipped. Fundamentally it's not clear to me (and I have not researched this) that the British really hadn't a good idea what they were going to be fighting against before their troops landed in France. Failure to plan is a plan to fail as they say. The French knew that the Germans were coming and should have been ready, but still there was chaos in the logistics of outfitting the troops and getting them in front of the Germans. The plans for feeding the troops once they were in the field also didn't seemed to be well thought out.
1915-1918 The German General Staff still managed to keep all of the balls in the air on both fronts, and focus their resources to knock a member of the allies out of the war each year. The big marks that I would put against them would be the failure to grasp the value of tanks. They did do a good job rolling out (identify resources, train equip and get them to the front) storm troops though.
The Russian General Staff seemed to be a mixed bag. They seemed more effective then expected initially in getting the army into the field quickly, but constant infighting eroded their effectiveness. There didn't seem to be a unity of vision. That and it seems an almost constant failure to appreciate the value of their troops, which resulted in growing losses.
Sure they are "off the cuff" opinions, but prove me wrong!