In England and Wales, of thousands of villages and towns only 53 had not suffered casualties; these were termed ‘Thankful Villages’. Of these, only 14 are doubly thankful in that they did not suffer casualties in the Second World War. @CWGC @WWI_Education
In the aftermath of the War, some people began to question the military competence of British generals, in the UK and in the colonies; these critics ranged from poets to politicians.
Increasingly, the works of poets like Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen came to be seen as the authentic voice of the veterans of the Great War, even though their view was not shared by thousands of other less strident voices.
Politicians, like wartime Prime Minister, David Lloyd-George, joined the chorus of criticism of generals like Field Marshal Earl Haig in an attempt to distance themselves from the dreadful losses of the war especially after Haig’s death in 1928.
A further group of critics emerging from the Great War were soldiers who had fought in the war. Two of these men would become important in military thinking after the War and their influence is still with us today – JFC Fuller and Basil Liddell-Hart.
Maj General JFC ‘Boney’ Fuller was perhaps the greatest intellect ever produced by the @BritishArmy. Fuller is responsible for the Principles of War which are precepts for military doctrine across the world, notably in the UK and USA. @USArmyDoctrine@MOD_DCDC
Fuller’s focus was on the employment of tanks. During the War, he was responsible for the planning of the tank attack at Cambrai in 1917 and at Amiens in 1918. At the end of the war, he was planning a tank offensive, Plan 1919, designed to smash the German army. @NAM_London
Fuller spent much of his time in the interwar years writing about war, criticising the Great War generals, and promoting the role of the tank. Fuller’s vision saw a future where tanks would fight like warships on land, there was no role for cavalry, infantry or artillery.
Fuller’s ideas were largely rejected at home, but were viewed with interest in Germany, where soldiers like Heinz Guderian, encouraged by the rise of the Nazis, saw the possibilities of armoured warfare.
The German tank force, the Panzerwaffe, was developed in the late 1930s along the lines envisaged by Fuller. At Hitler’s 50th Birthday Parade in April 1939, Fuller was an honoured guest who the Fuhrer thanked for his vision.
Despite the success of the German offensives against Poland and in the West, they learned that all tank formations were less effective than formations which combined infantry, tanks and artillery. The tank was important but there was still a role for the other elements.
Basil Liddell-Hart had been a captain in the British Army in the Great War and fought and was wounded at the Battle of the Somme. After the war he was responsible for writing infantry doctrine and was an advocate of the sort of tactics used by the Germans in Spring 1918.
Liddell-Hart was an outspoken critic of the Great War generals and had helped Lloyd-George to write his critical biography. He envisioned infantry working with tanks, infiltrating through enemy positions but avoiding the main strongpoints he called this the Expanding Torrent.
Unlike Fuller, Liddell-Hart’s theories found little traction with the Germans, however, after the war many claimed that they had been influenced by Liddell-Hart, some historians say as repayment for help with war crime investigations.
So were Fuller and Liddell-Hart ‘Great Minds’? They were undoubtedly powerful intellects and visionaries, but their criticism of the Great War generals was unfair, and their ideas did not survive practical application. You decide?
If you’re just tuning in or you missed our previous thread, you can find them saved in a Twitter Moment on this account, which can also be accessed with this link: twitter.com/i/events/14827…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The @BritishArmy operates to the highest values and standards, some of our opponents do not. At LWC we are studying how some regimes bend the rules of war to create advantage. This month we examine the Battle of France and extract lessons for application today. @thinkdefence
In recent years we have seen our opponents using techniques such as the use of disguise, deception, and fifth column activities to create advantage, much as the enemy did in 1940. #Ukraine#littlegreenmen@WarInstitute@wavellroom