In the movie 1917, two soldiers are tasked with delivering a message calling off an attack doomed to fail that would cost the lives of 1,600 men, soon after the German retreat to the Hindenburg Line during Operation Alberich in 1917. A New York’s times writer said that the plot was extremely unrealistic because the high command sent hundreds of thousands of their young men to die, and that in reality the scale of the casualties was such that the potential loss of 1,600 men would not have excited the response portrayed.
Is this a fair criticism? Would the British really have seen the loss of 1,600 insignificant and not worth saving?
Having taken a quick look at the NYT article, the writer doesn't have any historical qualifications beyond having done research for a play she wrote, and appears to have just regurgitated a number of pop history talking points which don't really have any credibility.
One paragraph which I find particularly bad is where the writer says:
In the film, just before being assigned his mission, Lance Corporal Blake says, “Must be something big if the general’s here.” With that line, the film acknowledges just how improbable his appearance would have been. Top commanders often remained far from the front, out of touch with the knee-deep mud and rat-filled trenches that the infantry endured. Many officers, in fact, lived in beautiful chateaus.
This is simply factually wrong. The generally accepted casualty figure is that of the roughly 1200 officers at the rank of Brigadier General or above, 78 were killed in action and a further 146 were wounded or taken prisoner (this includes 8 generals who were wounded twice). This is a fatality rate of around 7%, which, while below the rate for infantry soldiers or officers, is still far higher than it would have been if every General spent their time sitting around in Chateaus drinking wine.
One of the best defences of British Generals in WWI is Bloody Red Tabs General Officer Casualties of the Great War 1914-1918, by Frank Davies and Graham Maddocks which looks at all the Generals who were killed or wounded in action.
The author quotes John Mosier, whose book is subpar at best and bad history at worst. She fails to demonstrate an understanding of modern historiography surrounding the First World War.
I'd reccommend taking a look at this thread by u/nmw who breaks down a lot of myths surrounding the First World War. There's also an episode of the podcast which does a similar thing if you have a long train journey or car drive ahead of you.