Winners, Losers, Heroes & Strategies

Vigilant,
You ready for the big finish baby? Here it comes... On the first day of the Somme, the British lost 19,240 dead, 35,494 seriously wounded, and 2,152 missing: 57,470 casualties in total. The Ulster Division, which had assailed the hevily fortified German right, alone lost 5,600 men that day, most before noon.
The experienced French, attacking on the left, ran forward in open skirmishing formation, suffered lighter casualties, and took the lightly-manned German trenches. But they were forced to fall back when the British attack failed.
Refusing to accept defeat, Haig continued the slaughter on the Somme for four more months. When he finally gave up, in November, 1916, the Allies had gained a pitiful 125 square miles of bloody mud from the Germans at a cost of 600,000 men: 400,000 British Imperial, and 200,000 French casualties. The Germans suffered 450,000 casualties. At Verdun, 1.2 million men were lost on both sides.
The Somme - and - Verdun- were the two greatest military follies of the 20th century. In both titanic battles, military technology had far exceeded the general's 19th Century military intellect. In both battles, the flower of German, British, and French society were cut down, robbing these nations of their future. Today, France has still not recovered from the monumental losses at Verdun. Thirty years - one generation - after the Somme, the British Empire collapsed. The events of 1914-1918 still shape our world.
The Somme battlefield, with it's grim constellation of military cemeteries, stand as silent warnings to the danger of blind nationalism and military incompetence. Written by Eric Margolis 1996.
Now do you still think that Haig wasn't a butcher?
VBR,
Jim

"In both titanic battles (Somme and Verdun), military technology had far exceeded the generals 19th century military intellect."

Apparently this is one point agreed upon by both sides of this debate.

Regards,

MDD

Michael,
It is not his 19th century military intelect that I find the problem, it is or was his apparent lack of learning from his mistakes 3rd Ypres is the point, no quick victory was insight so what does this butcher do, like the Somme he continued to murder his troops by ordering attack after attack in the mud.

VBR,
Andrew

Michael,
The most damning evidence against Haig and Neville comes from the American Military Command. I quote 'Back To The Front' by Stephen O'Shea...
"The momentous events of 1917 spelled both trouble and triumph for the Allies. The Americans had finally plumped for war, but they were not about to let their ever-increasing contingent of men in France be placed under the authority of the likes of Haig and Nivelle. The sorry slaughters of the Chemin des Dames and Passchendaele had given proof of command incompetence, and army morale now rarely rose above the parapet of the muddy trenches. Unlike volunteers in the first half of the war, most new conscripts at the Front in 1918 knew that they were cannon fodder in a questionable cause." And with that I'll close with another passage from the same book.
He's referring to the events that happened on 11 Nov. 1918 around 11 o'clock when the Armistice was signed. " A few seconds before 11 o'clock that same morning, one observer with South African troops in Flanders saw a German machine gunner fire off a scorching hail of bullets towards their trenches. At the stroke of eleven, the gunner stood up, made a deep bow, turned around, and walked away." The war was over.
VBR,
Jim

[Reinout]

Axel Schudak, I just LOVE your style!

Jim Ace, it seems you're more familiar with the ground war than with the air war: I've actually seen you quote some good sources! Finally you're doing what we had asked you to do in the MvR threads - bring on evidence! No pun intended here, Jim, good to see the improvement.

Andrew Smith, you're quite right with your assessments of Australian involvement and (ab)use by the British.

I would just like to say that (because most of the guilt-ground has been covered in a 137-thread some time ago) when people point towards Germany and shout:"See, they were out for war!", don't forget that such a situation was prevalent in Europe. Great-Britain was getting nervous by German fleet-programmes (despite the fact that even during peace times Britain produced warships in a 3 to 1 ratio compared to the Germans). There were of course more reasons for Britain to participate in a war, but as I've already said: they were discussed earlier. France gave a blank cheque to Russia in the same way Germany gave to Austria-Hungary. Russia had visions of a slavic empire.... German trains carried the texts:"Nach Paris", while Allied trains rode with a large:"To Berlin" on their carriages.

Germany was made the sole guilty party because pressure from the Allied nations' populace cried out for it. That and the fact that one can never demand payment for damages unless guilt has been firmly established.
I remember very well a college I attended in 1994, where all the different views and motives for the Versailles-treaty were dealt with. The two above conclusions are the ones that have remained the most firmly in my memory.

I think it was Jim Ace who used that famous quote of the victors writing history. Well, that is true and I must say that my eastern neighbors have suffered greatly because of it. Of course crimes are crimes and cannot be whisked away just like that, and this statement was in no way intended to pledge Nazi's and Germans free from any such crimes. Please note the difference between Nazi's and Germans and also please note that most of the crimes committed in both world wars, have been committed by BOTH sides.

Speakers Corner is free gain...

Kind regards,

Reinout "Ich will ein Boelcke werden!"

I think some condemnation is due to American strategy and tactics in WWI. For the time we spent in the war, our casualties were heavy. This for the reason that we fought the war rthe same way the Brits and the French did. Check the names of the men for whom American Legion Posts were named. In many cases they are the names of American soldiers killed in the last week of the war in fruitless attacks after everybody knew the war was over.

[Vigilant]

Jim, Thanks for the large post -- that's what I thought happened on day one of the Somme. (Although I think the facts are correct, the implication made by your source that the British Empire collapsed as a result should make you wonder how good a historian this guy is!) I would appreciate it if you _analysed_ though, as well as _narrated_. In particular you fail to address my argument that the artillery preparation shows Haig's intention was to preserve life where he could, rather than squander it. I want to make clear I am not defending Haig on all and every points. 1 July 16 was obviously a disaster. But the fault surely lies with the staff work, not Haig's callous heart. His intelligence on the German deep bunkers must have been deficient, and I suspect his assessment of his shells' effeciancy was likewise over-optimistic.

A fundamental criticism of Haig here seems to be that his only plan for winning the war was to fight long battles of attrition. But perhaps one of you gentlemen could tell me, without using knowledge unavailable to the Allies in 1916/17, just how the war should have been won?? The best minds in 3 countries had 4 years to work that one out and failed to come up with a better idea.

(1) Blockade? Could not work unless activity at the front was causing the Central Powers to use up their resources faster than they could cope with.

(2) "Soft underbelly"? Would knocking Turkey or Austria out of the war have caused German capitulation? I would say no. In 1918 these powers collapsed when German support was withdrawn -- not the other way around.

(3) "Blitzkrieg tactics"? But how could those have developed without the learning experience of past battles? And, as I argued above, in 1918 Haig showed himself far more adept at using tanks/infiltration/intense artillery than did Ludendorff. This combination won the war for the Allies by giving Germany no sanctuary in defensive tactics as there had been in 1915 and more questionably in 1917.

Further, without the battles of attrition of 1916 and 17, the German spring offencives of 1918 would most probably have succeeded. As it was they came very close. While the politicians were telling Haig to win the war, I don't really see what else he could have done.

Respectfully submitted,

Vigilant.

Reinout,
I already explained about what I tried to do in the MvR thread, it was valid! About Germany having the responsibility for WW1 it's stated in Prince Lichownowsky's letter to Ambassador Grey. I will quote again " On the 30th of July, when Count Berchtold showed a disposition to change his course, we sent an ultimatum to St. Petersburg merely because of Russian mobilization and although Austria *had not been attacked* and on the 31st of July we declared war against the Russians, although the Czar pledged his word that he would not permit a single man to march as long as negotiations were still going on." Pay close attention here. He ends with " Thus we *deliberately* destroyed the possibility of peaceful settlement". Seems pretty cut and dried from that statement of Germany's own foreign minister to England.

Leo,
American Military planners were utilizing tactics that the Allies had used with a measure of small success.

Vigilant,
I will quote from 'Back to the Trenches' By the spring of 1918, Ludendorff was ready to launch his final offensive all the way back up in Flanders and Picardy. Unlike their French and British counterparts, the planners on the German general staff had learned from years of static warfare. They might have been undemocratic, class-conscious, heinous Junker autocrats, but they were open to new ideas." Continued in part 2.
VBR,
Jim

Vigilant,
I continue with the answer to your reply...
" These were supplied by a certain Captain Geyer, one of the shrewdest tacticians of the war. He saw that the Allies' adoption of the German defense-in-depth system- where the first trench was lightly manned and the main fighting force kept in different positions well away from no-man's-land -- spelled failure for the offensive tactic that had been adopted by both sides since the time of Verdun. The defenders could always counterattack. Geyer had found a way to eliminate the static Front. Henceforth, the war would be one of movement, the type of moving mayhem the generals had been seeking since the failure of the Schleiffen Plan. Geyer's tactics called for use of surprise, precision artillery, and specially trained Sturmtruppen, or Storm Troopers.
Sturmtruppen were the key. These elite troops probed the lines right behind the creeping barrage of artillery until they found a gap in the defenses. They then ran through, rifles slung over their shoulders, throwing grenades and reaching the enemy's second or third lines. They performed fish-hook maneuvers, whereby they raced beyond defensive positions then turned around, set up machine guns, and fired into the startled defender's backs. Once they had established isolated strongholds the bulk of the infantry came on, accompanied by dive bombing air planes and mobile artillery. The goal was to create confusion, exploit it, and unnerve defenders who would no longer know where the front was." Apparently Ludendorff had a large measure of success the week of March 21st, 1918 when he started the Spring Offensive. They had attacked over the old Somme battlefield and by the end of the week had went 40 miles into Allied territory.
Part 3 will tell you why the advance stopped and why the Allies won.
VBR,
Jim

Vigilant,
You stated that the attrition of 1916-17 helped Ludendorff's spring offensive. I think that it was a new element of warfare which took the Allies by total surprise and had the desired effect. It almost got the German's to Paris within a week. the only reason they stopped is that when they overran the British supply depots of Hazebrouck and Bailleul, fatigue had set in. "Many German soldiers, half-starved after years of fighting on the side that had been successfully blockaded, could not believe their eyes when they saw the relative opulence of British supplies in food and drink. They realized that their leaders had been lying to them about the effect of submarine warfare and the parlous state of Allied economies. In the open countryside behind the old British lines, the conquering Germans busted open wine cellars. The best army on the Western Front began to disintegrate. In just over a month, more than 350,000 German soldiers had been wounded as a result of the attacks in Flanders, Artois, and Picardy, 50,000 had been killed. Mass drunkenness and bouts of long deferred gluttony stalled Ludendorff's latest advance as did stiffening British resistance."
I think in this light if Haig would have listened to some of his junior officers he would have made more progress and expended less lives. 70,000 deaths for five miles of territory is a hell of a lot more expensive than 50,000 for 40 miles of advance. IMOH it is.
VBR,
Jim