Worldwaronewhy

World War One
Why I game it and my opinions about it.

When I was a young and impressionable young lad, I stumbled across some old magazines belonging to my Father. They were the first 30 issues of Purnell's History of the 20th Century. Their covers were both terrifying and awe-inspirind - particularly the one featuring the painting by Leroux which forms the background to this page - L'enfer- or in English - Hell. The inside was even more engrossing as I observed the immense casualties of the Somme and Verdun, and the pictures of battered landscape which haunted its pages. To be honest, since that night some 20 years ago the First World War has occupied a place in my mind as the definition of what a war is.
From a young age I was known to frustrate my parents by digging tiny but complicated trenches in their lawn and playing with my plastic toy soldiers.

At about the age of 12 I started to play 'real' wargames with rules and dice and tape measures. I started with the World War 2 troops that were so readily available to me, but soon found Napoleonics to be a real area of interest. First World War troops were not available in plastic and metal was quite literally out of reach.
When Revell released their French and Germans I bought a couple of packets, but there wasn't much compatible with them and they languished in the toy soldier box for the discarded.
At one stage I was hardly wargaming at all, but as I got older I found Warhammer and played that exclusively for a few years.
As I was writing my thesis at University I did quite a bit of research into the First World war. I went at and bought some of the newly available HaT rereleased Airfix WW1, but I really wanted to game 1918, and so I played WW2 and Napoleonics again instead. When I saw the Emhar releases that all changed. The old Revell were dug out and French, British and German armies sprang to life. HaT has provided me with Russians and Austrians, and soon their Anzacs and Turks will also find a home on my games table.

Unlike many people I do not subscribe to the theory that the First World War Generals were incompetent. In fact, I believe that Haig was a generally competent soldier who did a good job in what was a difficult situation. This is a contentious statement, and it would be very difficult to present a full argument here. I would advise all those disbelievers to study the works of John Terraine in particular, not just to accept the ramblings of Sassoon and Graves.
Basically, Haig was ahead of many other major commanders of his generation in appreciation of new technology (especially tanks which he felt he could not get enough of) and of the need to maintain the operational offensive. Certainly only Foch comes close in the latter. For no matter how long the casualty lists were for the Great War, they were in no way the fault of the generals but rather an outcome of the creation of total war. Compare the losses on the Western Front during World War One to those suffered on the Eastern Front in World War Two and it will be obvious that modern war cannot be won cheaply where both sides display the desire to fight.
Given this situation Haig delivered something that Lloyd George and others were truly responsible for throwing away - victory! The facts remain that the British and French armies (and the raw force of Americans present at the end) defeated the armies of Imperial Germany and its allies. Some revisionists have written that in the end it was Germany who emerged victorious as they suffered fewer casualties than the allies, as if body count was the final condition of victory. At no point was attrition a case of sheer flesh and blood. Haig always understood that the true battle of attrition was the one for morale. Admittedly the allies almost lost this battle in 1917, but thanks to leaders like Petain and Haig allied morale recovered to survive the shattering blows of 1918, and outdistance the Germans in the end. Like every war, the will of the commanders was the final arbiter of battle. Haig and Foch stared down and defeated Imperial Germany.
This has been a cursory treatment of my opinions on the Great War, and if anyone would like to discuss in greater depth, feel free to e-mail me.

Along with my historical perspectives on World War One come my fascination with the development of modern warfare.
Contrary to common belief, World War One was not simply about men climbing out of trenches to be mown down by machine guns (although this did happen). The tactics in use by 1918 were complex and probably in advance of those used by the British army at the start of World War Two. As Major-General Sir John Monash said, a battle was like 'conducting an orchestra', meaning every little thing had to be tuned and timed perfectly. Artillery, air support, armoured support and of course the infantry had to be coordinated or the battle would be a failure. The variance of weaponry and the whole evolution of modern warfare is thrilling to game.