The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - July 23, 2008

Advertisement


Advertisement
New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Hornet Leader
2.Harpoon 4: Modern Tactical Naval Warfare
3.Empires In Arms

4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge
6.Campaigns of King David
7.Queen of the Celts
8.Danube Front '85
9.Axis and Allies: Guadalcanal
10.Guns of August

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
World War I Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Verdun
Elbandeedo    9/17/2004 9:30:43 AM
I've been doing a lot of reading lately on WWI, in particular the battles in and around Verdun.

While I'm still testy about the French stance on Iraq, I have to give credit to brave men, and am having some sympathy for the French/Euorpean view of war - the loss of several generations in two major wars would cause anyone to have pause and take serious any consideration of war.

All that aside, one of the more heroic battles in the Verdun sector which I am finding fascinating, is Lt. Col. Emile Driants' last stand and those battles some of his light infantry fought.

Driant was a soldier who retired from service (or resigned) due to being passed over for a promotion. He went into politics, forming strong political ties to powerful men in the French government. At the advent of WWI, he joined back up, and was assigned command of two battalions of Chassuers or light infantry.
He was assigned to the Verdun sector and immediately discovered that it had been stripped by the high command of personnel and equipment, and defenses were sorely lacking. He shot a message up through political channels which drew significant flak, and a sarcastic response from Petaine, who said that the sector was secure. Of course, it wasn't. Driant used his own money and that of wealthy locals to reinforce the area by building concrete bunkers - using private funds and his men.

When the attack finally came, it started with the largest bombardment ever in the history of warfare. approximately 80,000 shells fell in an area smaller than 1 sq. kilometre. the woods were decimated, the trenches nearly disappeared. As the remnants of his command dug out, one trooper claimed that only 1 in five men were unharmed, 2 in five were alive.
initially, units held strong, but fell back after suffering more losses. Lt. Col. Driant rallied his men and shocked the Germans with a ferocious counterattack, retaking several key positions.
His men continued to hold for another day, but finally on February 22, they had to fall back. Driant and his commanders burned their papers and began to retreat - but Driant saw a wounded trooper and stopped to give aid - and was himself killed.

He gave of his personal assets selflessly to secure his beloved homeland and he paid the final price of freedom defending her. A true hero, and an example of leadership.

Elbandeedo
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: 1 2
Elbandeedo    RE:Verdun -numbers   9/17/2004 9:42:15 AM
I forgot to mention: Driants two battalions numbered roughly 1200 men prior to the attack. roughly 500 men, most of them wounded survived the two-day battle. E.
 
Quote    Reply

verdunjp    RE:Verdun   2/15/2005 8:21:34 PM
I am also very interested by that battle.
 
Quote    Reply

CJH    RE:Verdun   3/9/2005 9:07:29 PM
The French did suffer terribly in WWI but you have to observe they did not use every opportunity to head off that war. Britain, France and Germany spent many years making that war inevitable and then on the eve of the war were irresponsible in the way they let their bureaucracies drag them into it. It was self inflicted suffering. The original Russian operational plan had called for an attack on the Austro-Hungarians and the Balkans which was probably strategically sound. However, the French who were pressed by more immediate concerns than the unfolding of a winning strategy talked the Russians into an ill conceived direct attack on German East Prussia which resulted in the anhillation of a Russian army. The Russians remained mired in a stalemate with the Germans until despair over the war led people to join the Bolsheviks in their revolution. I believe that had the US not intervened in WWI all of the combatants would have gone through the same revolution experience the Russians went through and therefore there never could have been a WWII.
 
Quote    Reply

CJH    RE:Verdun   3/9/2005 9:07:49 PM
The French did suffer terribly in WWI but you have to observe they did not use every opportunity to head off that war. Britain, France and Germany spent many years making that war inevitable and then on the eve of the war were irresponsible in the way they let their bureaucracies drag them into it. It was self inflicted suffering. The original Russian operational plan had called for an attack on the Austro-Hungarians and the Balkans which was probably strategically sound. However, the French who were pressed by more immediate concerns than the unfolding of a winning strategy talked the Russians into an ill conceived direct attack on German East Prussia which resulted in the anhillation of a Russian army. The Russians remained mired in a stalemate with the Germans until despair over the war led people to join the Bolsheviks in their revolution. I believe that had the US not intervened in WWI all of the combatants would have gone through the same revolution experience the Russians went through and therefore there never could have been a WWII.
 
Quote    Reply

verdunjp    RE:Verdun to CJH   3/10/2005 1:15:00 PM
CJH wrote: "Britain, France and Germany spent many years making that war inevitable" According to me, Germany should be considered as the only responsable for WW1. On the subject, I suggest the reading of the classic "origine of WW1" written by the german Fritz Fisher. regards, JP
 
Quote    Reply

CJH    RE:Verdun to CJH   3/11/2005 1:20:54 PM
Hi verdunjp, I cannot disagree with the notion that Germany was the primary country responsible but I would disagree that it was the only one responsible. The French were spoiling for a chance to get even with Germany for 1870. They got it by 1920.
 
Quote    Reply

editor    RE: Who started it   3/18/2005 5:20:36 PM
I think it's in Nancy where there is a museum showing pre-war posters crying out over the loss of Lorraine - the French were itching for the chance to settle the score. Also, the expectation of war was high as early as the turn of the century throughout Europe, and not just over territory. I'll have to read the book you suggested, but even with Germany as the de facto aggressor they had plenty of company.
 
Quote    Reply

CJH    RE:Verdun to CJH   3/19/2005 8:59:51 PM
verdunjp, Are you in Verdun or from Verdun? I and my wife were there to tour the battlefield and ossarium in 1975.
 
Quote    Reply

verdunjp    RE:Verdun to CJH   3/23/2005 12:34:14 PM
Hi CHJ, Verdunjp is only my code name for forum. I am from Canada. I have simply choose that name because the battle of Verdun is quite interresting. Best regards, JP
 
Quote    Reply

verdunjp    RE: Who started it   3/23/2005 12:51:14 PM
It is right to say that France had at the beginning of the 20th century the desire to take back Alsace-Lorraine but nothing was realy prepare do do it because at that time, France realize that his interest was in his colonies and not in Europe. In the other hand, Germany had realy made long term plans and politics to make WWI inevitable in Europe. Best regards, Verdunjp
 
Quote    Reply

Constantine XI    RE: Who started it   4/28/2005 8:41:57 PM
It is fair to say Germany was not the only nation which must take responsibility for the war. Upon the announcement of war the populace of all engaged nations joyously welcomed the disaster they were heading into. Each nation was confident of victory, had long planned ahead for the occasion and the alliances which positioned nations one way or another were long in place and generally held firm (not in the case of Italy though). The diplomatic manouvering, imperialistic ambitions, bellicose rhetoric and the general idealization of war as romantic and glorious made all nations rattle their sabres and push into a war each expected to win. Perhaps some nations could been seen as having greater culpability in this conflict (such as Germany) while others can be absolved from any blame (such as the unfortunate Belgium) but in assessing this war as with all wars there remains the fact that it is the winners who write history. Peace out
 
Quote    Reply

PowerPointRanger    Why it hurt so much   11/6/2005 12:18:13 PM
I did lots of research on WWI for a paper. It was pretty amazing how much world economics changed as a result of the war. Basically the world economy pre-war was mercantile: cheap raw goods were shipped from colonies to Europe and expensive manufactured goods were shipped back. The balance of trade favored Europe. The Europeans jealously guarded this franchise on which they had built their own economic prosperity for hundreds of years. When the war came, this system was no longer practical. Scarce shipping was needed for more impartant things than consumer goods for foreign markets. The European devoted their industry to war material, which gave non-Europeans a window of opportunity to create domestic industries (which they did). They even sold Europe some war material. This shifted the economic balance from Britain, France & Germany, the dominant economic powers of the day, to countries like the US, Canada & Japan. When the war began, Britain was the world's largest creditor nation. When it ended, the US was. Britain was the largest debtor. The war was largely fought because Germany, the rising economic power of the day, needed colonies to exploit. The British & French had all the good colonies. The Germans were hoping to get something as part of a peace settlement. Add to this the fact that there had been a broad revolution in weaponry. This was hugely expensive on its own. For example, Britian, invested a fortune in hundreds of pre-dreadnaught ships. When the Dreadnaught came along, it made all of those ships obsolete. Since the Germans were building their navy largely after this revolution, the German ships were almost all of the newer, better class. This forced the British to basically rebuild their whole (HUGE) navy just to keep pace. Also, tactics had not caught up with innovation. The Europeans had never been very big on aiming. Their philosphy was fire as many shots as you can and you'll eventually hit something. This worked well enough in the days of muskets, but in the days of machine guns that could fire 500 rounds a minute this was very expensive and wasteful (and not very effective). A million rounds of small-arms ammo might be fired for every person killed. (It's like an episode of the A-Team.) Put this all together, you have Europeans who have lost their main source of income, spending tons of cash in every wasteful way imagineable. The war ended because all of the Europeans were on the brink of bankruptcy. When the US entered, we had plenty of money to spend & the Germans knew it. They tried to knock out the French & British before we arrived, but when that didn't work, they had no choice but to fold. Pretty much the only thing that kept the British & French from going broke after the war was the fact that they were getting reparations from the Germans and managed to re-establish some of its mercanitile economy. (Even with that, the British defaulted on their debts to the US.)
 
Quote    Reply

culprit217    RE:Verdun   11/30/2005 9:57:20 PM
Verdun was a key strong point that had to be defended. It was also a place well known to every French citizen and thus a point of national moral should it fall. The Germans knew it and the French knew it. Each side had differnt reasons to concentrate effort on the fort system. The French to hold at all cost and the Germans to attack it becasue the French would use all means to defend it and thus present neat little blue targets to the German guns. The fort, in essence had small strategic value since it was surrounded by many lines of trenches. In fact as a point of defense the wodds behind the fort made a much stronger defensive system. Strangely, no matter who held Verdun, that is all they could do. They could neither use it to advance their lines nor could they use it to defend their lines since the true defences were outside the system of forts. Nearly a million men died over Verdun and in the end, it was all for nothing. Although the generals of both sides considered Verdun highly important in reality, it was merely a place on the map to fight and die and to kill over. And, afterall, that is what soldiers do in war, isn't it? (From first World War.com)"French casualties during the battle were estimated at 550,000 with German losses set at 434,000, half of the total being fatalities. The only real effect of the battle was the irrevocable wounding of both armies. No tactical or strategic advantage had been gained by either side." "The German General Falkenhayn's plan was to subject Verdun to intense bombardment, thus drawing in and diverting French troops from all over the Western Front to the eight mile wide front around Verdun. Falkenhayn?s stated aim was to ?bleed France white? in its defence of the ancient fortress town. The fact that Verdun formed a French salient into German lines only served to help Falkenhayn, since it meant that it was open to attack from three sides at once." Thus we see the Germans considered the attack against Verdun a way to attrit the French. Unfortunately, after the initial failure to take the small forts surrounding the central fort, the Germans seem to have lost sight of the original goal of simply killing French soldiers with artillery. By repeatedly and fruitlessly attacking a strong fortified position, they became victims of their own plan.
 
Quote    Reply

RBSchwartz    RE:Verdun   4/29/2006 2:01:59 PM
Enjoyed your disc. on Lt. Col. Emile Driant-the French heroe of Verdun. Do you or anybody know the two words that he & his men made famous meaning both "Goodbye" and "best of luck" from this battle?
 
Quote    Reply

timon_phocas    RE:Why it hurt so much   4/29/2006 8:01:54 PM
>> The war was largely fought because Germany, the rising economic power of the day, needed colonies to exploit. The British & French had all the good colonies. The Germans were hoping to get something as part of a peace settlement. << That question was examined very carefully in the 1920?s through economic analysis. A book that covers this well is, ?The Credit of Nations?, It is one of those economic analyses from the 1920?s, and it periodically surfaces on the top of various book stacks in my home. It deals with the transformation of economies through the comprehensive extension of credit (for production, transportation and consumption), along with the revolutionary technological transformations of the time. According to it, the Germans were doing very well indeed in international trade. They had adequate access to raw materials and were cleaning Britain?s clock in trade competition. They were not forced to start the war from economic pressures.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2008StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy