What Is The Difference Between The Prince Of Glory And The Western Front
The Prince of Glory and The Eastern Front, both display the the conditions of both countries, soldiers, home front, and leadership within the battles of World War I. The differences between the two countries approaches to the war are vastly different, however, the themes within the battles are similar. These themes include the leadership of both armies, patience, and the home front stability; these themes found in both countries affect their outcomes of their battles. It appears that the French, unlike the Russians, remained more stable throughout these battles due to their superior organization, care for their soldiers, and ability to keep their home front stable. The leadership within the French army changed multiple times throughout the Battle of Verdun, however, the leadership they chose allowed them to survive and ultimately overcome the German army during this battle. While Joffre was a leader that the soldiers admired and believed knew what he was doing, he struggled to actually make tactical
…show more content…
defensives that would gain France a better outcome early on: “By not losing his head when his Plan XVII disintegrated about him, Joffre saved France” (Horne, 22).
The loss of Fort Douaumont would ultimately end up costing the french thousands of lives due to Joffre’s less than adequate leadership. Joffre, however, did care for the soldiers and made it seem like the soldiers were cared for which allowed them to rely on him as a leader. The next leader, Nivelle, that was supposed to aid France at Verdun ended up failing. Nivelle’s strategy of all or nothing offensives ended up costing the French more men and the high morale of the soldiers: “Since June 2nd, Nivelle had ordered five separate attempts made to relieve the fort. Each inadequate to the task, had foundered with bloody losses” (Horne, 264). While these failing offensives did have a heavy cost on the French, they did gain more knowledge about their soldiers needs and capabilities in battle. His failing offensive attacks they made way for the important leader of this battle due to his leadership during the mutiny in France. Pétain, the more successful leader of this battle, showed more compassion for his soldiers and made more tactical defensives that ended up showing his true leadership capabilities. Pétain handled the mutiny in France better than his counter part in Russia instead of becoming harsh, Pétain restored morale of his soldiers by talking to the men, promising no more suicidal attacks, providing rest for exhausted units, home furloughs, and moderate discipline: “Yet his two great assets—his understanding of the defensive and the devotion he inspired among the groups—ideally suited him to task there” (Horne, 141). Pétain increased his soldiers morale and kept the mutiny within the french army from German intelligence, Pétain lead smaller offensive attacks that proved to be helpful within this battle. Pétain’s strategy that proved to be successful was to wear the german army out and counter attack them in order to over come them, as well as rotating his troops from the front lines in order to relieve them. It appears that Pétain’s leadership proved to be successful within the mutiny and the Battle of Verdun. While the leadership within the french army proved to be successful the Russians on the Eastern Front appeared to be unsuccessful due to the reaction of the leadership to mutiny within the Russian army, failed offensives, and failure to organize. Many of the leaders within the Russian army were raised to command through friends at court or through other connections, which cause their authority to be undermined by their soldiers. This is just one way that the leadership within the Russian army causes them to fail within their battles. Brusilov, the first commander discussed by Stone, was a good leader and commander, however, his failure to communicate effectively and his reactions to the mutiny within the Russian army caused him to fail: “although Brusilov, as the example of 1917 was to show lacked the common touch. He had to deal with innumerable objections from his subordinates” (Stone, 291). Brusilov failed to effectively combat the democratization of the army. While the revolution occurred his reaction to his army was harsh and ineffective which caused the soldiers to rise and enthusiasm about the war to decline. It appears that reacting with harsh punishments when the soldiers are speaking out does not effectively promote the war.
The reaction of this commander caused the Russians to collapse rather than succeed.While his offensive strategies gained the Russian army more territory at first the amount of soldiers lost was too devastating for them to come back. The communication with Brusilov, the high command, and the soldiers is another reason why the Russian army collapsed. The Russian leadership was sluggish receiving and distributing orders which caused the organization of their army to fail as well. The territory gained was then lost due to the sluggishness of communication and their failure to organize. The second commander that was discussed by Stone was Kornilov, while he was a leader in the revolution and coup his actions did not effectively allow the Russian army to succeed. This is clear from the loss of territory and retreat that occurred on the eastern
front: Only one division—Kornilov’s—w as caught, partly because its order to retreat came too late, partly because its supply-routes were taken up with other troops’ supplies, partly because Kornilov foolishly counter-attacked: he surrendered on 6th May, with all but five guns. (Stone, 162).
Kornilov was successful in attempting to increase morale of the soldiers and lead them to a better way of life, however, he failed to effectively lead the coup to victory. While both commanders had their faults within the Eastern front their leadership in the end was ineffective and was one similar theme of the two battles. While the Russians took a more offensive stance on the Eastern front, this offense caused the Russian army to collapse due to uneven distribution and the army not having patience. In order for both countries to be successful within their battles and the war they need to have patience, with their defense and with their soldiers. As discussed, the Russians did not show patience with their soldiers within the mutiny that occurred. In contrast the Russians reacted to the mutiny with punishment for their soldiers while the french reformed and were patient with their demands. The Russians continued brutal offensives that took major losses of their soldiers and weakened their army. The French, unlike the Russians, were patient within their battle against Germany: “By 1916 the infantryman had simply become, in the words of one of the great French war novelists, simply a ‘waiting machine’ ”(Horne, 57). The French began to take more of a defensive stance that in the end would allow them to succeed, the defensive drained the German army and allowed the French to re-group. As discussed by both authors another major theme is patience that differed between the two countries. The ability to keep a stable and reasonably unaffected home front is a major contributor to the success of a country during the war. The French home front was relatively stable during the battle of Verdun and they went about their daily lives without any altering, this gave the french soldiers something to fight to maintain. This theme that was discussed by Horne proves that their stability encourages the enthusiasm for the war to continue. While the French home front was stable there were some factors that allowed this to occur, life was getting better before the war, better organization, and better leadership. The positives of the French government and leadership allowed their army and society to not collapse. Another factor that caused the home front of France to be stable was the reduction of consumer choice, while this was unpleasant for society at times, it allowed the French to secure and prevent a collapse. The stability of the home front proved to be important in the continuation of the war. While the French home front was stable and only remotely affected by the war, the Russian home front was drastically unstable due to organization, uneven distribution of goods, return to subsistence farming, no control of war workers wages. These factors of the war affected the Russian society and inevitably the army: This economic chaos was frequently ascribed quite simply to backwardness: Russia was not advanced enough to stand the strain of a war... But economic backwardness did not alone make for revolution, as the examples of Romania or Bulgaria showed... The economic chaos came more from a contest between old and new in the Russian economy. (Stone, 334) Prior to the war, Russia’s population grew rapidly in a short amount of time which caused a crisis of growth, this pre-war factor also contributes to the instability within Russia during the Eastern front due to the rapidness and inability of the government to lead them through this crisis: virtually all sectors of the economy grew.... their growth was not even and a series of bottle-necks threw the economy into chaos as it encountered them. The Tsarist regime had little idea as to how such crisis might be surmounted, and in any case they provoked the final crisis of an already badly-strained society. (Stone, 251) If the Russian home front was stable then the army and society would not have collapsed, however, due to the mutiny within the army and the poor organization by the Russian government this was not possible. The themes of both battles show the differences between France and Russia, these differences inherently determined the outcomes for both countries in Verdun and the Eastern Front. While the French took more a defensive stance during their battle it inevitably was for the best. The French showed effective leadership that allowed them to over come the Germans and keep their home front stable. The patience of their leaders enabled them to have a better outcome and be more successful in comparison to the Russians. While the Russians failed to be patient and have effective leadership which lead to the collapse of their society and army. These contrasting countries show that the effectiveness of their leadership, patience and stability of their home front are necessary for the continuation of the country.
defensives that would gain France a better outcome early on: “By not losing his head when his Plan XVII disintegrated about him, Joffre saved France” (Horne, 22).
The loss of Fort Douaumont would ultimately end up costing the french thousands of lives due to Joffre’s less than adequate leadership. Joffre, however, did care for the soldiers and made it seem like the soldiers were cared for which allowed them to rely on him as a leader. The next leader, Nivelle, that was supposed to aid France at Verdun ended up failing. Nivelle’s strategy of all or nothing offensives ended up costing the French more men and the high morale of the soldiers: “Since June 2nd, Nivelle had ordered five separate attempts made to relieve the fort. Each inadequate to the task, had foundered with bloody losses” (Horne, 264). While these failing offensives did have a heavy cost on the French, they did gain more knowledge about their soldiers needs and capabilities in battle. His failing offensive attacks they made way for the important leader of this battle due to his leadership during the mutiny in France. Pétain, the more successful leader of this battle, showed more compassion for his soldiers and made more tactical defensives that ended up showing his true leadership capabilities. Pétain handled the mutiny in France better than his counter part in Russia instead of becoming harsh, Pétain restored morale of his soldiers by talking to the men, promising no more suicidal attacks, providing rest for exhausted units, home furloughs, and moderate discipline: “Yet his two great assets—his understanding of the defensive and the devotion he inspired among the groups—ideally suited him to task there” (Horne, 141). Pétain increased his soldiers morale and kept the mutiny within the french army from German intelligence, Pétain lead smaller offensive attacks that proved to be helpful within this battle. Pétain’s strategy that proved to be successful was to wear the german army out and counter attack them in order to over come them, as well as rotating his troops from the front lines in order to relieve them. It appears that Pétain’s leadership proved to be successful within the mutiny and the Battle of Verdun. While the leadership within the french army proved to be successful the Russians on the Eastern Front appeared to be unsuccessful due to the reaction of the leadership to mutiny within the Russian army, failed offensives, and failure to organize. Many of the leaders within the Russian army were raised to command through friends at court or through other connections, which cause their authority to be undermined by their soldiers. This is just one way that the leadership within the Russian army causes them to fail within their battles. Brusilov, the first commander discussed by Stone, was a good leader and commander, however, his failure to communicate effectively and his reactions to the mutiny within the Russian army caused him to fail: “although Brusilov, as the example of 1917 was to show lacked the common touch. He had to deal with innumerable objections from his subordinates” (Stone, 291). Brusilov failed to effectively combat the democratization of the army. While the revolution occurred his reaction to his army was harsh and ineffective which caused the soldiers to rise and enthusiasm about the war to decline. It appears that reacting with harsh punishments when the soldiers are speaking out does not effectively promote the war.
The reaction of this commander caused the Russians to collapse rather than succeed.While his offensive strategies gained the Russian army more territory at first the amount of soldiers lost was too devastating for them to come back. The communication with Brusilov, the high command, and the soldiers is another reason why the Russian army collapsed. The Russian leadership was sluggish receiving and distributing orders which caused the organization of their army to fail as well. The territory gained was then lost due to the sluggishness of communication and their failure to organize. The second commander that was discussed by Stone was Kornilov, while he was a leader in the revolution and coup his actions did not effectively allow the Russian army to succeed. This is clear from the loss of territory and retreat that occurred on the eastern
front: Only one division—Kornilov’s—w as caught, partly because its order to retreat came too late, partly because its supply-routes were taken up with other troops’ supplies, partly because Kornilov foolishly counter-attacked: he surrendered on 6th May, with all but five guns. (Stone, 162).
Kornilov was successful in attempting to increase morale of the soldiers and lead them to a better way of life, however, he failed to effectively lead the coup to victory. While both commanders had their faults within the Eastern front their leadership in the end was ineffective and was one similar theme of the two battles. While the Russians took a more offensive stance on the Eastern front, this offense caused the Russian army to collapse due to uneven distribution and the army not having patience. In order for both countries to be successful within their battles and the war they need to have patience, with their defense and with their soldiers. As discussed, the Russians did not show patience with their soldiers within the mutiny that occurred. In contrast the Russians reacted to the mutiny with punishment for their soldiers while the french reformed and were patient with their demands. The Russians continued brutal offensives that took major losses of their soldiers and weakened their army. The French, unlike the Russians, were patient within their battle against Germany: “By 1916 the infantryman had simply become, in the words of one of the great French war novelists, simply a ‘waiting machine’ ”(Horne, 57). The French began to take more of a defensive stance that in the end would allow them to succeed, the defensive drained the German army and allowed the French to re-group. As discussed by both authors another major theme is patience that differed between the two countries. The ability to keep a stable and reasonably unaffected home front is a major contributor to the success of a country during the war. The French home front was relatively stable during the battle of Verdun and they went about their daily lives without any altering, this gave the french soldiers something to fight to maintain. This theme that was discussed by Horne proves that their stability encourages the enthusiasm for the war to continue. While the French home front was stable there were some factors that allowed this to occur, life was getting better before the war, better organization, and better leadership. The positives of the French government and leadership allowed their army and society to not collapse. Another factor that caused the home front of France to be stable was the reduction of consumer choice, while this was unpleasant for society at times, it allowed the French to secure and prevent a collapse. The stability of the home front proved to be important in the continuation of the war. While the French home front was stable and only remotely affected by the war, the Russian home front was drastically unstable due to organization, uneven distribution of goods, return to subsistence farming, no control of war workers wages. These factors of the war affected the Russian society and inevitably the army: This economic chaos was frequently ascribed quite simply to backwardness: Russia was not advanced enough to stand the strain of a war... But economic backwardness did not alone make for revolution, as the examples of Romania or Bulgaria showed... The economic chaos came more from a contest between old and new in the Russian economy. (Stone, 334) Prior to the war, Russia’s population grew rapidly in a short amount of time which caused a crisis of growth, this pre-war factor also contributes to the instability within Russia during the Eastern front due to the rapidness and inability of the government to lead them through this crisis: virtually all sectors of the economy grew.... their growth was not even and a series of bottle-necks threw the economy into chaos as it encountered them. The Tsarist regime had little idea as to how such crisis might be surmounted, and in any case they provoked the final crisis of an already badly-strained society. (Stone, 251) If the Russian home front was stable then the army and society would not have collapsed, however, due to the mutiny within the army and the poor organization by the Russian government this was not possible. The themes of both battles show the differences between France and Russia, these differences inherently determined the outcomes for both countries in Verdun and the Eastern Front. While the French took more a defensive stance during their battle it inevitably was for the best. The French showed effective leadership that allowed them to over come the Germans and keep their home front stable. The patience of their leaders enabled them to have a better outcome and be more successful in comparison to the Russians. While the Russians failed to be patient and have effective leadership which lead to the collapse of their society and army. These contrasting countries show that the effectiveness of their leadership, patience and stability of their home front are necessary for the continuation of the country.