Was Falkenhayn's plan really to whittle away at French troops at Verdun or did he just make that up to after failing to take Verdun?
>>1095014
talking through my arse, yes it to kill off french infantry and possibly supply
/v/ is talking about WWI if anyone is in the mood for condescension
>>>/v/336682359
>>1095014
He made that up. The point of his offensive on Verdun was to crush the french spirit, by causing a slaugther, causing seddition, and forcing the frogs to make a peace who would be advantageous to the germans. Back then, Falkenhayn knew that Germany could not win the war, but it could also not lose the war.
However, he completly failed at this, because, instead of breaking the french spirit, it renew it. The french propaganda turned Verdun in some kind of epic battle against the disgusting german war machine and their gas warfare. It allowed Philippe Pétain to become a giant celebrity among the frog-people.
>>1095244
But I mean, when one thinks of war one thinks of fighting battles to take territory. The idea of INTENTIONALLY not taking territory is the slightest bit unorthodox, especially for WW1 up until that point. Nothing Falkenhayn ever told anyone or wrote down stated that hisi plan was to wear France down. That supposed plan only popped up later.
It seems like Falkenhaym wasn't trying some new strategy and that he just made that plan up ex post facto to excuse his failure to take Verdun.
>>1095299
From what I understand, the original idea behind Verdun was to almost surround it, allowing the Germans to attack French forces being moved in and out of Verdun. Because Verdun was seen as something the French wouldn't give up, the French would continue to pour resources into the pocket while the Germans would be able to wreak havoc on supply lines and whittle down forces in the pocket.
The real problem at Verdun was that the French fought a hell of a lot harder than the Germans expected. The Germans were unable to take the areas they planned, meaning that the pocket couldn't be created like they wanted and they wouldn't be able to hit incoming reinforcements with artillery.
Worse, the French were far better at managing attrition, so even though they still were hoping that the offensive would bleed the French white, German units participating in the battle were actually suffering far worse.
>>1095014
It's hard to tell. He definitely had a point though.
The French generally had higher losses than Germany by that point and they had less children per family meaning that the families would be less willing to sacrifice them.
>>1095311
>the French were far better at managing attrition, so even though they still were hoping that the offensive would bleed the French white, German units participating in the battle were actually suffering far worse.
This is the true issue here.
Pétain developed an elaborate system for rotating the troops which always kept them fresh and motivated. The majority of French soldiers fought at Verdun at some point while the German troops under the Prussian Crown Prince were stuck there, with their morale declining steadily. This also had major political consequences since the Crown Prince became known as the "Butcher of Verdun" to the Germans, who would lead countless men to their deaths to no effect, invalidating him as a possible candidate to the throne in the public eye. Without the Battle of Verdun it is possible that Germany could have maintained the Monarchy after Wilhelm II stepped down.
>>1095368
Yup. The French system cycled units through the battlefield, with units being withdrawn after something like 20% losses (not sure the actual number).
Meanwhile, the German units deployed were kept there until no longer combat effective.
