The Somme.

[Herne]

Possibly many in the US may not know that at first light, Saturday 1st July 1916, the British and Canadians went into action on the Somme. (Essentially to draw German divisions off the French at Verdun. Many argued that it was the wrong battle, for the wrong objectives, at the wrong time- still the French needed assistance, or the front at Verdun would probably have broken, so it had to be done.)

Of your charity, spare a thought for the 19,000 killed and 31,000 wounded on that first day, especially those who have no known grave.


If I might put it into perspective;

This was 5 times than the TOTAL list of ALL Allied casualties on D Day.

Pershings doughboys, who no doubt made a great contribution in 1918, at places like Belleau Wood and Chateau Thierry, nevertheless suffered in total, 26,000 killed, missing and wounded during the whole campaign in France. We lost, on the Somme, almost twice that many in one day.

There is on Thiepval Ridge, a memorial to the Brits and Canadians. It has on it the names of all those posted missing in the months of battle - whose bodies were never found. There are more than 100,000 names of young men on it. Just those missing in action. You cannot, if you go there, do anything but weep.

[Bill Gunn]

It was a Very sad day, and also a day that we learned... "You can't march into German Machine Guns" :(

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/2354/trench2.jpg

The beginning of a new type of warfare..

[Badger]

Herne,

Sir Douglas Haig and the British General Staff CONTINUED to commit more British troops day-after day-after day into that meat grinder. The crime was in the direction of that slaughter for so little gain.

One more thing, the U. S. lost 116,000 killed and 204,000 wounded soldiers in France, not 26,000, in WWI.

Badger

[Herne]

On the figures I stand corrected, and I do apologise. I didn't look it up - it was in my mind from a visit to their memorial at Chateau Thierry. Still it remains less than we lost in the 4 months of the Somme, (400,000 approx) which was only one battle amongst many.

I have to disagree with your view of Haig and the general staff. It is a common view, but weak in a number of respects, particularly it represents a modern view, rather than the view taken at the time.

It overlooks the fact that Haig and the staff reckoned that the Army was insufficiently trained, and advised a start (of any offensive) some 2 months later. And that for him better objectives lay in Belgium further north - in particular the U-bat bases.

It overlooks the fact that the Army had to fight the Somme some 10-15 divisions short. I can't remember the precise figures off the top of my head, but the French promised the additional manpower, but were unable to deliver because of the pressure at Verdun. They lent us 5 I think, so the force was much less than originally planned.

It also overlooks the strategic purpose of the battle - to relieve the pressure on the French - so the battle had to continue, because it was not being fought to gain ground. In other words stopping was not an option.

It overlooks the fact that, even then, the military was ruled by the politicians, and the British war cabinet did not and would not have sanctioned closing the battle down, because of the possibility of France being knocked out of the war.(Remember how perilously close the French army was to mutiny and collapse at Verdun)

It overlooks the fact that the Somme was "the muddy grave of the German army" from which the Germans never recovered. Indeed Ludendorf said he could not face another Somme. As a consequence the Kaiser was forced, despite advice and the risk of bringing the US into the war, to start unrestricted U boat warfare as a means of tackling the British. and we know where that led.

Its overlooks the fact that the battle was successful in its aims. Within a couple of weeks or so, the Germans were forced to move divisions from Verdun, and that after about mid July the French were able to go on the offensive at Verdun.

It overlooks the fact that the Staff did learn the lessons, and ever after that the all arms battle was in use, that tactics were changed and that in fact, under Haigs direction the British army became, by 1918, the best performing and best led army of all the Allies, and the only one capable of defeating the Germans on its own.

And it overlooks the fact that, in terms of the judgement of the nation, and of his soldiers, what Haig did was not seen as unreasonable at the time. At his funeral, thousands of his own men mourned his passing. in other words, he was well loved and respected as a commander.

IT is also entirely destructive, because it criticises without offering any alternative. Given the will of the Cabinet, and the willingness of the nation to accept casualties, tell me what else could he do. Give us another tactic that would have worked. If there is to be inflexibility in this, it was Pershing, who despite being given advisers, still in 1918, marched his men against machine guns in a way that the rest of the Allies had stopped doing 2 years before.

So its not a view that I would see as being useful.

[Altjaeger]

Herne,

Sir Douglas Haig and the British General Staff CONTINUED to commit more British troops day-after day-after day into that meat grinder. The crime was in the direction of that slaughter for so little gain.

Badger

I recommend Robin Neillands, "The Great War Generals on the Western Front 1914-1918". I don't think it will take long for him to change your mind on the subject. I started it Sunday and have finished only about 20% but the book is dedicated to examining if the British generals were callous butchers living high at the rear.

He points out all the reasons that Herne does and more to spread the blame around and more. One was the tendency of democracies to be unwilling to spend the funds to be prepared for war instead choosing to ramp up after a war starts (Sounds like our own country). Compared to other Armies they had fractionally as many machine guns and artillery, at the levels below Divison especially. They also were about 1/8 the size of the French and German Armies. He shows that the Generals were quick and flexible to adapting weapons and tactics when possible such as the continually ramping up of the role of aircraft in the war. Even after the troop movements had begun the British politicians were slow to commit for the taste of the military.

Although modernization in weaponry such as the machine gun, better artillery, smokeless powder and more was a major factor in the large number of casualties other lacking technologies such as improved communications prevented the flexibility in planning that would come later. Radio and field telephone technology was all but unknown below Divison level. Semaphor flagging, messengers of the K9, pigeon and human variety were the order of the day. As you can imagine human messenger was particuliarly fallible in that environment.

Next is that the British Generals faced the same problems and results as all the other nations generals. This argues against the British being especially inept and uncaring.

Perhaps most important is that the beliefs you espouse were formed by historians sitting in the warm comfort of the library after the War was over and facts neatly gathered. It ignores that decisions are made in the fog and confusion of battle where surprises is the rule and not the exception, where many events are unknown at the time decisions are required and the means to communicate commands may be lacking. It ignores that old saw that a battle plan is only good until the first round is fired.

Just as important is that modern war is changing and casuallties are higher. In France in June and July of 1944 the British 3rd Infantry division lost 6,000 men in France at Arras the same division lost 5.400 men in April 1917. The British losses in north-weatern Europe in 1944-1945 reached and exceeded WW I levels yet the same accusations are not leveled at Monty, Dempsey, O'Connor, Ritchie, Bucknall or Harrocks.

Again the beliefs you provided are common among the Brits themselves and more so in that period between the two wars. I do recommend Neillands'book as well as is book on his, "The Battle of Normany 1944" if you would like reading that action from a British authors view.

[Smokey]

It ignores that old saw that a battle plan is only good until the first round is fired.


The above states a lot. Many decisions made in those times were made without the aid of the best intelligence. I have yet to see a battle or operation action plan that goes off entirely as planned. It is always easy to Monday morning quarterback an operation.

[Bill Gunn]

Look at the numbers of killed we are talking about here, all regular guys like you and me, just trying to get by..

Wouldn't it be easier to kill off the top 100 politicians in each country involved, and there would be no war?

If not... read the first sentence again...

[GF.]

Not 'just regular guys like you' and me, Bill; not at all, and not in the least 'just trying to get by'.

They were called. They answered. And they changed the course of history when they could've cut & run, giving it up for a bad job. I can't imagine it.

100,000 young men. Two Viet Nam Memorials' worth, just for those lost and never found. Six more Viet Nam Memorials for those they were able to bury in marked graves.

Can't imagine it.

I remember thinking some years ago about how different it would be to have grandchildren some day, and to tell them stories about all the 'adventures' I had when I was young... Skiing, rock climbing, sea kayaking, mountain biking... All the really 'cool', 'extreme' stuff that I've enjoyed, and the kind of stuff we never had any idea about GrandMa and her brothers and sisters doing back in their day...

But for her generation, the 'extreme' stuff was surviving polio, and living through the big flu outbreak, and watching two generations of young men go off to die in those wars 'to end all wars'. No wonder they didn't need to go courting disaster just to make sure they were feeling 'alive'....

[Bill Gunn]

Not 'just regular guys like you' and me, Bill; not at all, and not in the least 'just trying to get by'.

They were called. They answered. And they changed the course of history when they could've cut & run, giving it up for a bad job. I can't imagine it.

100,000 young men. Two Viet Nam Memorials' worth, just for those lost and never found. Six more Viet Nam Memorials for those they were able to bury in marked graves.

Can't imagine it.

That's Exactly what I'm saying.
I know what grief is like too, I spent 2 full years as a loadmaster on C-130's in Vietnam, getting shot at, dodging mortars, and hauling our soldiers dead bodies from all over the country, to Da Nang, and Saigon.
They would be in body bags that always leaked, and you could tell from some of the 1/2 full bags, that only the top, or bottom half of the guy was being sent home to his family.
We would pick up so many bodies after a fire fight, and the floor of the plane would be so full of body fluids from bodies that have been out in the 120* heat for days, that we would have to have a fire truck come out to the plane, and hose it out, so we could keep using it for the rest of the day.
I honestly didn't mind being there, I volunteered to be there for both years. But when I was flying those bodies, I'd look at those 1/2 & 3/4 filled bags and think, "There's someones teenage son, husband, brother, boyfriend... just like me (I was 21 myself, married, with 2 kids), and they'll never again see home." I just think they deserved more than to end up a puddle on the floor of a cargo plane...

[GF.]

I just think they deserved more than to end up a puddle on the floor of a cargo plane...


Amen, brother. No doubt every last one of 'em did.

It's like the roll call in our little town on Memorial Day. You hear them go down the list, war after war, 232 years' worth (I guess it'll be 200 thirty-three come Saturday), and the same names keep coming up, over and over again, sometimes 6 or 7 times in a row. It's like Herne says - all you can do is weep.

But killing off politicians and expecting it to end the wars? What were you smoking over there between loads? ( ;) ) If there is one thing humans are uniquely equipped to do, it's find things to fight over, and there is nothing so sacred that we won't manipulate it to serve our own ends.

[Herne]

I would just like to reiterate my apology over the US figures. I must have remembered something form a divisional memorial perhaps. Nor would I wish to denigrate the usefulness of the US contribution to a very war weary Britain and France. The Somme was one battle , but there were more to come and many very expensive - notably Passchendael. We could have done it on our own, but a bit of help is never to be sneezed at.

We may have been the best army in the field, but even so attitudes were scarred by the toll. That attitude lasted even into the Second War - and it was probably one of the causes of caution in Montgomery (a 1st War vet of course). And perhaps the root of some of the friction between the allies.

Still to quote Churchill - "There is only one thing worse than fighting a war with allies, and that is fighting one without them."

So like it or lump it, you will just have to get along with us Brits, and I daresay we shall manage to do the same with you. :)