Germany did not have the
strength. The attack had to be delivered against one or the other. Which
should it be?
[Sidenote: The French losses much greater than the British.]
An attack against the French had certain advantages. The French army was
unmistakably the weaker of the two. In the early days of the war, while
the British army was being formed, it was the French who had to stand
the brunt of the fighting. At Verdun it was the French who from February
to July beat back the German assaults along the Meuse time after time in
the most tremendous duel of the war. In the Battle of the Somme it was
the French who fought their way forward south of the river to the
outskirts of Peronne and Chaulnes. The French losses had, therefore,
been very much greater than the British. As the populations of France
and of the United Kingdom are about the same, the French people had,
therefore, suffered much more than had the British, and were
correspondingly less able to stand such a blow as Germany was able to
deliver.
[Sidenote: Much of French front is invulnerable.]
But there was one great disadvantage in attacking France. The blow could
not be delivered against the front from St. Mihiel to the Swiss
frontiers. This front is vulnerable only where the Vosges Mountains are
broken by the great gaps at Belfort, Epinal, and Nancy; and these gaps
are easy to defend and well backed up in rear by great bases of supply
excellently served by many radiating railroad lines.
Pages:
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193