How important is insignificant minor fighting in war?

Griffith

Banned
When I read All Quiet On the Western Front and later watched its much superior 1930 film adaptation, one of the most thought-provoking scenes was when Paul went to a restaurant during his leave. Because he was a veteran, some German civilians began asking him about the war and one even brought out a map to discuss strategy based on what they know of the war.

One person commented that Germany is winning the war. Paul refuted the claim, stating his units is in terrible condition and several times the French nearly cracked the trench fortification they were defending. Another person than commented that it does not matter if things seem bad in his unit's station because its an insignificant portion of Germany's entrenchments. Everywhere should be fine according to what they were told and even if the section that Paul's platoon is defending gets overrun, it won't be a problem because Germany is winning elsewhere.

This conversation so outraged Paul he left the restaurant as the German civilians than escalated their conversation into an argument, pointing towards the map what ought to be done in where. This scene impacted me so much. Whenever military history is discussed, always is emphasized on what a huge impact major battles did in the war but never are minor incidents and fighting like a bunker being bombed or minor ambushes in one front of the war considered important (at least in general history texts). This scene in All Quiet On the Western Front opened my eyes to just how important an insignificant ambush or the loss of one bunker can play in a war or at least in a major battle.

But I seek your input.
 

Deleted member 1487

It's the accumulation of 'insignificant' tactical engagements in service of a wider strategy that matter. In terms of that particular scene from AQOTWF in the context of WW1 the civilians are probably right, because it was a grinding war of attrition and the Germans were winning until the US entered (though suffering quite badly in the process).
 
All Quiet on the Western Front describes World War 1, which was a very gritty, dehumanizing, terrible war. The book likes to present the theme that the soldier isn't very important, as seen with the ending in which (a soldier who is assumed to be) Paul is killed on the front, but the report says "all quiet on the western front". In WW1 was an average soldier or even his unit strategically significant? Honestly, not really. They certainly didn't matter much to the grand strategy planning high command who would order thousands of men like them to their deaths. A hundred deaths? No big deal. A hundred thousand? Now that would have them worried.
 
Minor skirmish importance depends on the importance of where/when it happens. In WW2 Australia undertook quite large battles on Pacific islands that were bypassed and irrelevant to the outcome of the war, whereas small patrols of subs, planes and ground troops right up in Japans face were important as they were the tip of the spear. The same applies to WW1, losing platoon level skirmishes in quiet sectors isn't really a problem but losing them against a looming offensive is a problem.
 

Deleted member 1487

All Quiet on the Western Front describes World War 1, which was a very gritty, dehumanizing, terrible war. The book likes to present the theme that the soldier isn't very important, as seen with the ending in which (a soldier who is assumed to be) Paul is killed on the front, but the report says "all quiet on the western front". In WW1 was an average soldier or even his unit strategically significant? Honestly, not really. They certainly didn't matter much to the grand strategy planning high command who would order thousands of men like them to their deaths. A hundred deaths? No big deal. A hundred thousand? Now that would have them worried.
I think they experience 2000 casualties a day on the Western Front as 'wastage', which was about 1 regiment worth of men. Think about that 1 regiment was 'wastage' per day just during a quiet period for both sides on one front.
 
There is always this little gem:

Colonel Harry Summers - "You know, you never defeated us on the battlefield."

General Vo Nguyen Giap - "That is true, it is also irrelevant."

I don't know if that was ever said or if it is one of those urban myths that has been repeated so many times it has become true but you get the point.
 
Top