A weekend on The Somme
Obviously I'm in the minority here, and I'm unable to answer such deep statements as "history is history"
What you avoid understanding is that after the Germans swept into France almost to the gates of Paris, they retained all the high ground and were content to hold against all attacks, especially by the French who suffered appalling losses.
The bullets killing all these brave Australians/Newfounders etc weren't British and in no instance were any Empire troops sent in as "cannon fodder" to be "slaughtered" in preference to British troops.
Yes the scale of casualties was enormous, but the bulk of all "Allied" attacks were uphill and against unfavourable ground where the defender had the advantage.
Nevertheless, as "history is history" and you want to believe that the British were killing your troops and not the Germans, I can't argue in the face of that.
ANZAC troops committed atrocities against unarmed Arab villages in Egypt, is that the way I should think of all Australian troops?
Carry on, I'm out....
What you avoid understanding is that after the Germans swept into France almost to the gates of Paris, they retained all the high ground and were content to hold against all attacks, especially by the French who suffered appalling losses.
The bullets killing all these brave Australians/Newfounders etc weren't British and in no instance were any Empire troops sent in as "cannon fodder" to be "slaughtered" in preference to British troops.
Yes the scale of casualties was enormous, but the bulk of all "Allied" attacks were uphill and against unfavourable ground where the defender had the advantage.
Nevertheless, as "history is history" and you want to believe that the British were killing your troops and not the Germans, I can't argue in the face of that.
ANZAC troops committed atrocities against unarmed Arab villages in Egypt, is that the way I should think of all Australian troops?
Carry on, I'm out....
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
justapplhere's diatribes appear to be based on the views of Charles Edward Woodrow Bean who was an accreditted Australian War Correspondent during WW1 and later became the Australian Official War Historian despite his lack of formal credentials in Historical Research and Authorship.
His views as to the relative merits of Australian Formations compared to the merits of the Forces of other Allied Nations can most politely be described as "Partisan".
His views as to the relative merits of Australian Formations compared to the merits of the Forces of other Allied Nations can most politely be described as "Partisan".
The man was quite specific when he used the terms "Commanders" and "Generals". Perhaps I have been watching the wrong BBC programs about the Somme and other great battles where the same "commanders" are being criticized by the presenters.
Back to the thread....all these years later and the losses in that war are still causing debate....as evidenced here in this thread!
Back to the thread....all these years later and the losses in that war are still causing debate....as evidenced here in this thread!
Agreed - way off piste in a bit of a 'piste-ing match'..
However, a couple of points if I may:
Before claiming accuracy justapplhere might wish to bear in mind that the buying of commissions ended in 1871.
In context, Douglas Haig would've had to have been bought his commission as a 10th birthday present. A fair number of other senior officers in 1914 would've had to have had their commissions bought for them before birth While I suspect that a couple of ancient 'dug out' officers in 1914 might have bought their commissions just before the practice died out, it is wildly inaccurate to say that the majority of officers had bought their commissions. If there were any who had, they were in the overwhelmining minority, and given their age, they would have been in second-line and staff functions rather than enacting command.
Oh, and the
bit is open to doubt - the debacle at Fromelles, for instance, was largely down to General McCay. Born Ireland 1864, family to Australia 1865, considered himself to be an Australian. It wasn't just us Poms who had officers not up to the task of fighting a war which none of them had ever prepared for (the army being used to fight in the colonies with European entanglements being left to the Europeans).
Second point - John Laffin is to accurate history of WW1 what Lewis Page is to accurate consideration of air power. Laffin was comprehensively debunked by Robin Prior (or was it Trevor Wilson - it was one of that duo, anyway) in a programme on Douglas Haig shown on the BBC about a decade ago. Laffin rarely made use of primary source material, and certainly never bothered to put in any information which might contradict his assertions. Rather like Noble Frankland's comment on strategic bombing, Laffin was one of those people who preferred 'to feel, rather than know' on the subject. There are other historians who are critical of the commanders, but the nice, black and white 'Butchers and Bunglers' approach Laffin (and others) espoused has been comprehensively dismantled in recent years.
Research (Davies & Maddocks, for instance) demonstrates that the 'chateau general' image is a bit of a myth. The number of officer of 1* rank and above killed, wounded or captured in WW1 is into three figures (compare that with WW2), and at least one (Clifford Coffin) won a VC leading his men under fire. Billy Congreve (also a VC) was shot by a sniper while encouraging his men, and more than a few others (non-VCs before anyone suggests a link) were killed, gassed, shot or wounded by arty fire while in front line trenches or close to what we'd now term the FEBA.
Now, granted, these casualties weren't common when compared to the risks the men in the front line faced, but generals paid more visits to active fronts than is appreciated.
The reason for using Chateaux was in no small part down to the fact that they offered a reasonable basis for a communications hub - comms and signalling were extremely difficult, and commanders found themselves forced to communicate from some distance behind the front line (out of the way of enemy arty, which accounted for a number of HQ locations and occupants in 1914/1915).
Now - none of this takes away from the fact that there were some appallingly hopeless commanders (Hunter-Weston), some who weren't quite up to the job (many of whom were 'degummed' and sent home) and a good number who could only find the way to success through trial and error - at appalling cost in casualties.
With respect, we can have a superficial debate over competence here, based upon plausible, well-argued, but badly-researched books (or upon raw emotive prejudice reinforced by same) or perhaps get back on track with the purpose of the thread...
However, a couple of points if I may:
Before claiming accuracy justapplhere might wish to bear in mind that the buying of commissions ended in 1871.
In context, Douglas Haig would've had to have been bought his commission as a 10th birthday present. A fair number of other senior officers in 1914 would've had to have had their commissions bought for them before birth While I suspect that a couple of ancient 'dug out' officers in 1914 might have bought their commissions just before the practice died out, it is wildly inaccurate to say that the majority of officers had bought their commissions. If there were any who had, they were in the overwhelmining minority, and given their age, they would have been in second-line and staff functions rather than enacting command.
Oh, and the
Imbecilic strategies by pompus Poms
Second point - John Laffin is to accurate history of WW1 what Lewis Page is to accurate consideration of air power. Laffin was comprehensively debunked by Robin Prior (or was it Trevor Wilson - it was one of that duo, anyway) in a programme on Douglas Haig shown on the BBC about a decade ago. Laffin rarely made use of primary source material, and certainly never bothered to put in any information which might contradict his assertions. Rather like Noble Frankland's comment on strategic bombing, Laffin was one of those people who preferred 'to feel, rather than know' on the subject. There are other historians who are critical of the commanders, but the nice, black and white 'Butchers and Bunglers' approach Laffin (and others) espoused has been comprehensively dismantled in recent years.
Research (Davies & Maddocks, for instance) demonstrates that the 'chateau general' image is a bit of a myth. The number of officer of 1* rank and above killed, wounded or captured in WW1 is into three figures (compare that with WW2), and at least one (Clifford Coffin) won a VC leading his men under fire. Billy Congreve (also a VC) was shot by a sniper while encouraging his men, and more than a few others (non-VCs before anyone suggests a link) were killed, gassed, shot or wounded by arty fire while in front line trenches or close to what we'd now term the FEBA.
Now, granted, these casualties weren't common when compared to the risks the men in the front line faced, but generals paid more visits to active fronts than is appreciated.
The reason for using Chateaux was in no small part down to the fact that they offered a reasonable basis for a communications hub - comms and signalling were extremely difficult, and commanders found themselves forced to communicate from some distance behind the front line (out of the way of enemy arty, which accounted for a number of HQ locations and occupants in 1914/1915).
Now - none of this takes away from the fact that there were some appallingly hopeless commanders (Hunter-Weston), some who weren't quite up to the job (many of whom were 'degummed' and sent home) and a good number who could only find the way to success through trial and error - at appalling cost in casualties.
With respect, we can have a superficial debate over competence here, based upon plausible, well-argued, but badly-researched books (or upon raw emotive prejudice reinforced by same) or perhaps get back on track with the purpose of the thread...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Burrow, N53:48:02 W1:48:57, The Tin Tent - EGBS, EGBO
Posts: 2,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I passed by the Menin Gate en route to Switzerland [I think] several years ago. I was unable to stay for the evening ceremony but was appalled by the huge number of names visible from the coach in which I was travelling.
With regard to WW2 memorials, the American one at Duxford always gives me food for thought, as does the memorial to the Women Pilots of WW2 at Elvington.
Elvington:
Duxford - each aircraft represents one aircraft of its type and the crew, lost in WW2.
With regard to WW2 memorials, the American one at Duxford always gives me food for thought, as does the memorial to the Women Pilots of WW2 at Elvington.
Elvington:
Duxford - each aircraft represents one aircraft of its type and the crew, lost in WW2.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Right here (right now)
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spent three years at SHAPE, and tried to get down to the Somme as much as possible (but you can never spend enough time in such a historically-rich area). I am glad I had the opportunity to take my sons there to show them the battlefields firsthand, it gave them (and myself) a much better understanding of what it may have been like although it will never replicate the horrors those heroes endured.
Our freedom today is a direct result of the sacrifices of these brave souls...
Our freedom today is a direct result of the sacrifices of these brave souls...
Of interest I discovered that in the Delville Wood cemetary are a couple of RAF (rather than RFC) graves which, dating from 1918, must be amongst the earliest casualties that the service suffered.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dorset
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Weekend on the Somme
Notwithstanding the arguments about which Generals deserve the most credit or blame for vast casualty lists in the First World War, I wish to add my name to the list of 'hay fever sufferers' this forum appears to have in astonishing quantity. Visiting 'Wipers' many years ago and being present at the Menin Gate during the evening ceremony, I decided to take a photograph of the event. To my surprise that mysterious 'hay fever' struck as I raised the camera to my eye and the bugler started to play, and the photograph I actually got owes nothing to my ability as a photographer (fairly small) because I could see little through the viewfinder and had to rely on luck to get any sort of photograph.
The sentiments expressed by several people in this thread suggest that taking the youth of today, whose school history lessons seem to have ignored entirely the efforts of their forefathers to keep this country free, to the battlefields upon which most families in Great Britain (at least, those who have been here for at least hundred years or so) lost a son, is a salutary experience and one that ought to be visited upon every child as it passes from junior to senior school. Perhaps some of the money thrown at the Common Market (or whatever it is being called this year) could be diverted to this end and show our children that their ancestors did do something of benefit to them and to the rest of the continent as well.
The sentiments expressed by several people in this thread suggest that taking the youth of today, whose school history lessons seem to have ignored entirely the efforts of their forefathers to keep this country free, to the battlefields upon which most families in Great Britain (at least, those who have been here for at least hundred years or so) lost a son, is a salutary experience and one that ought to be visited upon every child as it passes from junior to senior school. Perhaps some of the money thrown at the Common Market (or whatever it is being called this year) could be diverted to this end and show our children that their ancestors did do something of benefit to them and to the rest of the continent as well.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sunny Manchester
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Went myself in October (Menin Gate, Tyne Cot & Devonshire Trench amongst others) & couldn't help being moved. Always touching to see small memorials still cared for by the locals, you can't say that the French don't appreciate the sacrifices made.
Re the RAF crests on the headstones, I asked our guide about that. It seems that any RFC / RNAS were "badged" as RAF when the cemeteries were formalised in the 1920s.
Re the RAF crests on the headstones, I asked our guide about that. It seems that any RFC / RNAS were "badged" as RAF when the cemeteries were formalised in the 1920s.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: over here
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just been over to Ieper for the second time this year, having been in the summer for my first visit. The contrast with the Christmas festivities and the memorials is very thought-provoking.
Like others have said here, the Menin Gate just opens up a well of emotion when you see it for the first time. I urge you all to go and see it if you can, I have been round the Somme several times but there is something special about ‘Wipers’ even though the cemeteries are mostly out of town. Whatever is said about the causes of the conflict and the way in which it was fought, the only thing that I felt was a humble respect for those who had given their all for Britain and the Allies, regardless of wherever in the world they had come from.
Like others have said here, the Menin Gate just opens up a well of emotion when you see it for the first time. I urge you all to go and see it if you can, I have been round the Somme several times but there is something special about ‘Wipers’ even though the cemeteries are mostly out of town. Whatever is said about the causes of the conflict and the way in which it was fought, the only thing that I felt was a humble respect for those who had given their all for Britain and the Allies, regardless of wherever in the world they had come from.
Thread Starter
Toc H
Agree with you Arc. Toc H stirs all sorts of emotions. The tour of the museum in the attic is a must.
That story about the Luger rounds through the ceiling - true...........??
In relation to LongTimeInCX comments above, I recall an inscription on a Somme Headstone which went something like this:
'Please be careful not to stand on my son, for below you is the love of a mother'.
My memory fades regarding the exact inscription, but I defy anyone to walk away from it with a dry eye.
TN
That story about the Luger rounds through the ceiling - true...........??
In relation to LongTimeInCX comments above, I recall an inscription on a Somme Headstone which went something like this:
'Please be careful not to stand on my son, for below you is the love of a mother'.
My memory fades regarding the exact inscription, but I defy anyone to walk away from it with a dry eye.
TN
Last edited by tarantonight; 17th Dec 2009 at 17:44.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Adelaide, SA
Age: 72
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree about the impact this (and many other places, Hell Fire Pass for example) has on one at its first, or indeed it's many-th exposure.
But as somebody who had to study what occurred professionally, and has been in a situation (though thankfully not at war) analagous to that of some of the commanders who have been criticised in this post, I wonder how many of the posters, given the level of knowledge available at the time (thus, without any hindsight) would have been able to do any better, or indeed could have done any better?
There are times when the defence is way ahead of the offence; that, until one of the combatants became exhuasted and a new technology, the tank, had been perfected enough to be usable, was the position. The options available to any commaner when placed in the position of having to attempt to recover ground in that situation are limited and none of them are attractive.
There is no doubt that the really good generals of WW2 (Slim etc) learnt much from their experience as junior officers, as I hope my generation learnt from them; but it was about leadership, not tactics or strategy. But there were bad generals in WW2 (on all sides) as well.
I'm Australian; I hold no particular candle for any of the Allied commanders of WW1 (and that includes Monash - he was a good, capable general of his generation, others were arguably both better and worse); but I also dislike an interpretation of history which suggests that the Australians (or the NZers or the Canucks) were gods let down by clowns. Such an interpretation is, to say the least, specious. It might pander to national myths or prejudices but is does nothing for an objective intepretation of the past.
But as somebody who had to study what occurred professionally, and has been in a situation (though thankfully not at war) analagous to that of some of the commanders who have been criticised in this post, I wonder how many of the posters, given the level of knowledge available at the time (thus, without any hindsight) would have been able to do any better, or indeed could have done any better?
There are times when the defence is way ahead of the offence; that, until one of the combatants became exhuasted and a new technology, the tank, had been perfected enough to be usable, was the position. The options available to any commaner when placed in the position of having to attempt to recover ground in that situation are limited and none of them are attractive.
There is no doubt that the really good generals of WW2 (Slim etc) learnt much from their experience as junior officers, as I hope my generation learnt from them; but it was about leadership, not tactics or strategy. But there were bad generals in WW2 (on all sides) as well.
I'm Australian; I hold no particular candle for any of the Allied commanders of WW1 (and that includes Monash - he was a good, capable general of his generation, others were arguably both better and worse); but I also dislike an interpretation of history which suggests that the Australians (or the NZers or the Canucks) were gods let down by clowns. Such an interpretation is, to say the least, specious. It might pander to national myths or prejudices but is does nothing for an objective intepretation of the past.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too have visited various WW1 battlefield locations and cemeteries, together with the Menin Gate and have been similarly moved. To be honest, I found some of the small cemeteries as sobering, if not more so, than some of the larger ones - they seemed a bit more personal somehow.
Having read a fair number of books about the war, it is perhaps all too easy with 20/20 hindsight and judging by today's standards to have the popular view that the Generals were incompetent buffoons, but one of the best books I have read recently was 'Mud, Blood, and Poppycock', by Gordon Corrigan, which paints a different picture.
What other options did the commanders have once trench warfare had set in? To attack over open ground with no bombardment would be an invitation to be cut down by machine gun fire, as happened. To have a long pre-attack bombardment would give the enemy ample warning of the attack, often didn’t cut the enemy wire, left the ground extremely difficult to move over and often resulted in the attacks getting bogged down. As time progressed so did tactics, with moving barrages, mines, gas, tanks, aircraft observation and communication etc. The huge numbers of lives lost is no less dreadful and there were many mistakes made, as in all wars, but to say that the commanders tried the same old thing over and over again and did not innovate (as is often the modern perception) is unfair.
Having read a fair number of books about the war, it is perhaps all too easy with 20/20 hindsight and judging by today's standards to have the popular view that the Generals were incompetent buffoons, but one of the best books I have read recently was 'Mud, Blood, and Poppycock', by Gordon Corrigan, which paints a different picture.
What other options did the commanders have once trench warfare had set in? To attack over open ground with no bombardment would be an invitation to be cut down by machine gun fire, as happened. To have a long pre-attack bombardment would give the enemy ample warning of the attack, often didn’t cut the enemy wire, left the ground extremely difficult to move over and often resulted in the attacks getting bogged down. As time progressed so did tactics, with moving barrages, mines, gas, tanks, aircraft observation and communication etc. The huge numbers of lives lost is no less dreadful and there were many mistakes made, as in all wars, but to say that the commanders tried the same old thing over and over again and did not innovate (as is often the modern perception) is unfair.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To put matters into perspective the following is a summary of casualties suffered by WW1 Protagonists as a percentage of personnel mobilised.
France 76.3%
Russia 76.3%
Romania 71.4%
Germany 64.9%
Serbia 46.8%
Montenegro 40.0%
Italy 39.1%
British Empire 35.8%
France 76.3%
Russia 76.3%
Romania 71.4%
Germany 64.9%
Serbia 46.8%
Montenegro 40.0%
Italy 39.1%
British Empire 35.8%
Australian casualty rate was 65%....
During World War I over 421,809 Australians served in the military with 331,781 serving overseas.[160] Over 60,000 Australians lost their lives and 137,000 were wounded.[160] As a percentage of forces committed, this equalled a casualty rate of almost 65 percent, one of the highest casualty rates amongst the British Empire forces.
During World War I over 421,809 Australians served in the military with 331,781 serving overseas.[160] Over 60,000 Australians lost their lives and 137,000 were wounded.[160] As a percentage of forces committed, this equalled a casualty rate of almost 65 percent, one of the highest casualty rates amongst the British Empire forces.
Australian casualty rate was 65%....
During World War I over 421,809 Australians served in the military with 331,781 serving overseas.[160] Over 60,000 Australians lost their lives and 137,000 were wounded.[160] As a percentage of forces committed, this equalled a casualty rate of almost 65 percent, one of the highest casualty rates amongst the British Empire forces.
PS: Australian Flying Corps - No. 4 Squadron became the most successful fighter squadron in France, accounting for 199 enemy aircraft
During World War I over 421,809 Australians served in the military with 331,781 serving overseas.[160] Over 60,000 Australians lost their lives and 137,000 were wounded.[160] As a percentage of forces committed, this equalled a casualty rate of almost 65 percent, one of the highest casualty rates amongst the British Empire forces.
PS: Australian Flying Corps - No. 4 Squadron became the most successful fighter squadron in France, accounting for 199 enemy aircraft
Thank you. In my immediate family group alone I had three great uncles killed in action, two more seriously wounded and my grandfather seriously wounded. When one considers that the population of Australia then was around 5 million, the number of able bodied men who signed up and went to war was staggering. Roughly one third of all eligible men served of which two thirds became casualities..
we've never missed a war since the Maori Wars in NZ, the Boxer Rebellion to A/Stan now where we get less coverage than the Poles!
we've never missed a war since the Maori Wars in NZ, the Boxer Rebellion to A/Stan now where we get less coverage than the Poles!