Battle of the Somme

[mickb2112]

From everything I've read, I tend to read the diaries of people who fought in the war, all reason was out of the equation when you didn't have a cat in hell's chance of breaking through the German lines. Down in a crater, wait 'til nightfall until making your way back, deal with questions later.

It shouldn't be forgotten that the advantage during WW1 lay with the defenders because tactics hadn't kept pace with technology, and no one had come up with a viable plan for breaking through a well fortified defence, and the Germans had the luxury of picking the best ground when they dug in first, always the high ground and could see right into the British trenches from a mile. They knew what was coming at The Somme and prepared accordingly. When the British got up near the German lines and looked back they were amazed to find the view the Germans had.

The view across Vimy Ridge and down over the plains is incredible. The ridge is not that high in real terms but you can see for absolute miles which is why the Canadians had to use tunnels in the quarries below No Man`s Land to be able to get up close and launch an attack.

 

[Wierd Valley Mackem]

This whole thing about who was to blame for the war is a really interesting question, and hotly debated.

One thing that can be said with certainty is that it wasn't something that no one could control. That idea was a get out clause for politicians whose memoirs claimed that it was an unstoppable force that gathered momentum and overtook everyone. It is absolute bollocks. Certain decisions led to World War One, decisions made by the military and politicians, and in truth supported by many people; but it certainly wasn't this thing that no one could control.

On the German side, it could be argued that the assignation of an Austrian diplomat was Terrorism, sponsored by the government of Serbia, and quite rightly the Austrian Government should seek to redress the balance; and Germany should support its ally. Not really any different to the attack of New York and Britain supporting the United States. You could also argue that in many ways Germany was a liberal country; it wasn't this nation characterised by Militarism alone. It had a welfare state much more advanced than ours and it had the largest socialist presence in Europe. Also, absolutely nowhere does it state that Germany wished to challenge Britain in the lead up to WW1. Their stated war aims was a continental European common market ran by Germany, plus some land grabs in Central/Eastern Europe. It really doesn't wash to say Germany was to blame for the whole thing.



On the eve of war, Sir Edward Grey said something like: "the lights have gone out all over Europe and we shan't see them lit in our lifetime".

They understood how catastrophic the war would be. It shouldn't be levelled at them that they took the decision lightly with little thought for the consequences. Whether or not you think it was the right decision is another matter.

Another good post. Ive heard it argued that WW1 was France's fault in revenge for the Franco Prussian war too? Its a lot more complex than inevitability anyway. Wonder if the Germans had not attacked Belgium how different the 20th Century might have been?

 

[mickb2112]

Birdsong is awful - anachronistic and full of historical inaccuracies.

Check out an Australian film called Beneath Hill 60. Should still be on UK Netflix

One of the best WWI films there is. Of course All Quiet on the Western Front and Paths of Glory are right at the top.

 

[Dubai Si]

I did vimy ridge, menin gate was brilliant on the night, Beaumont hamel, devills wood, Tyne cot cemetery.
Also the site of a huge explosion from the tunnellers

I done that all last year too, including the official Somme annual memorial service. Sobering stuff but absolutely incredible. Lots of walking around with bits of dust in the eyes.

 

[Locke's SAFC]

Another good post. Ive heard it argued that WW1 was France's fault in revenge for the Franco Prussian war too? Its a lot more complex than inevitability anyway. Wonder if the Germans had not attacked Belgium how different the 20th Century might have been?

I think I'd be right in saying that the French spent at least as much on the military as the Germans. In the event the Germans were this militaristic nation hell bent on destruction, then why is that they spent similar sums as other nations on the military?

I don't really know how much the French wanted revenge, I'm sure in certain quarters it will have been the case, as with any other country defeated in a war; but they did lock in the Russians through finance so that they were in it together or not at all.

The Germans were pretty paranoid about all of this, and had been for a long time considering themselves to be 'the land in the middle' and backed into a corner by the French and Russians with the support of the British. The Germans attacked out of a feeling of insecurity, not out of a feeling of being unconquerable.

The British were caught between a rock and a hard place as the majority in the cabinet did not want a war, but felt they had to honour their obligations or risk not being taken seriously; which is why they gave no guarantees to either the French or the Germans in an effort to deter them.

In answer to how the 20th century could have been different, many commentators believe that the 20th century should have been the German century and not the American century, due to their efforts in science, the arts etc; but WW1 ruined it for them - although I am biased in this because I believe war is never justified and on balance even the victors lose.

 

[mickb2112]

I think I'd be right in saying that the French spent at least as much on the military as the Germans. In the event the Germans were this militaristic nation hell bent on destruction, then why is that they spent similar sums as other nations on the military?

I don't really know how much the French wanted revenge, I'm sure in certain quarters it will have been the case, as with any other country defeated in a war; but they did lock in the Russians through finance so that they were in it together or not at all.

The Germans were pretty paranoid about all of this, and had been for a long time considering themselves to be 'the land in the middle' and backed into a corner by the French and Russians with the support of the British. The Germans attacked out of a feeling of insecurity, not out of a feeling of being unconquerable.

The British were caught between a rock and a hard place as the majority in the cabinet did not want a war, but felt they had to honour their obligations or risk not being taken seriously; which is why they gave no guarantees to either the French or the Germans in an effort to deter them.

In answer to how the 20th century could have been different, many commentators believe that the 20th century should have been the German century and not the American century, due to their efforts in science, the arts etc; but WW1 ruined it for them - although I am biased in this because I believe war is never justified and on balance even the victors lose.

Excellent post amongst numerous great posts on this subject.
France had Plan XVII whereas the Germans had the Schleiffen Plan. The French were aggrieved by their losses in the Franco Prussian war and wanted Alscacse Lorraine back. The French gather a large number of troops within reasonably close range of the German border with the aim of pushing directly through Germany`s middle. The German`s certainly feared a strong France and an ever growing Russia on the other side. They genuinely feared an attack on 2 fronts. The Schleiffen Plan involved a relatively weak attack on the French middle allowing the French to push forward. meanwhile the right hook would move swiftly through Belgium, swing round and one part take Paris and the other crush the rear of the French army that was engaged with a frontal attack on Germany. The aim was a swift quick war to knock France out of the way then to turn and attack the Russians before they had a chance to mobilise.

the plan unravelled however due to the BEF and the Belgian army holding up the attack through Belgium. The Schleiffen plans strong right hook was weakened by Moltke and the French were prevented from pushing forward to Germany and therefore instead of being drawn away from Paris they were close enough to swing round and mount a stout defence at the Marne and push the Germans back. The Germans then took their pick of the high ground, dug in and 4 years of stalemate ensued.

The point is, it wasn`t all about German aggression. The French as Locke`s SAFC says wre building up their army and the British too were stepping up the arms race desperate to keep pace with German expansion. Britain wanted to retain its power at the top and didn`t want a strong Germany interfering. All of the major powers were jostling for position and all were in some way to blame for what happened.

Don`t forget that Austria`s heir to the throne was murdered and they reacted. How would Britain have reacted if George V had been murdered, I`m pretty sure they would have declared war on the country they felt were responsible. Austria had Germany`s support with the blank chequebook and when Austria declared war on Serbia, Germany felt compelled to back them which brought Russia into it behind Serbia and then France who were allied to Russia with Britain following due to the attack on Belgian neutrality as the German`s marched through Belgium to attack France.

And so it all came crumbling down.

 

[nelford_safc]

Birdsong is awful - anachronistic and full of historical inaccuracies.

Check out an Australian film called Beneath Hill 60. Should still be on UK Netflix

Beneath Hill 60 is a brilliant WW1 film. Could of done with a little more action but because of the nature of the plot there isn't much. It's really haunting and claustrophobic though. Well worth a watch.

 

[mickb2112]

Although it doesn`t get mentioned very much at all, I have read a couple of books that touch on it. 1913 and going into 1914 was a great time of social upheaval and thousands of working days were lost to strikes which were getting ever more violent. Ireland was a constant rumbling across the sea.

As the summer approached the discontent was growing ever louder and if I recall similar unrest was occurring in Europe too as the working classes agitated for reforms. Working and living conditions were appalling, few had real representation in governments and poverty was rife. Britain and Europe was on the verge of widespread civil unrest.

I often wonder whether "a short war" would divert attention away from these civil issues, focus the minds on a common enemy and maybe do away with a few of the real rabble rousers. Get it over by Christmas and all would end well and the status quo would be restored and everything would go back to normal.

Does anyone think that the war could have been partly triggered to divert attention away from civil unrest??

 

[Locke's SAFC]

Excellent post amongst numerous great posts on this subject.
France had Plan XVII whereas the Germans had the Schleiffen Plan. The French were aggrieved by their losses in the Franco Prussian war and wanted Alscacse Lorraine back. The French gather a large number of troops within reasonably close range of the German border with the aim of pushing directly through Germany`s middle. The German`s certainly feared a strong France and an ever growing Russia on the other side. They genuinely feared an attack on 2 fronts. The Schleiffen Plan involved a relatively weak attack on the French middle allowing the French to push forward. meanwhile the right hook would move swiftly through Belgium, swing round and one part take Paris and the other crush the rear of the French army that was engaged with a frontal attack on Germany. The aim was a swift quick war to knock France out of the way then to turn and attack the Russians before they had a chance to mobilise.

the plan unravelled however due to the BEF and the Belgian army holding up the attack through Belgium. The Schleiffen plans strong right hook was weakened by Moltke and the French were prevented from pushing forward to Germany and therefore instead of being drawn away from Paris they were close enough to swing round and mount a stout defence at the Marne and push the Germans back. The Germans then took their pick of the high ground, dug in and 4 years of stalemate ensued.

The point is, it wasn`t all about German aggression. The French as Locke`s SAFC says wre building up their army and the British too were stepping up the arms race desperate to keep pace with German expansion. Britain wanted to retain its power at the top and didn`t want a strong Germany interfering. All of the major powers were jostling for position and all were in some way to blame for what happened.

Don`t forget that Austria`s heir to the throne was murdered and they reacted. How would Britain have reacted if George V had been murdered, I`m pretty sure they would have declared war on the country they felt were responsible. Austria had Germany`s support with the blank chequebook and when Austria declared war on Serbia, Germany felt compelled to back them which brought Russia into it behind Serbia and then France who were allied to Russia with Britain following due to the attack on Belgian neutrality as the German`s marched through Belgium to attack France.

And so it all came crumbling down.

I would agree with some of that, mate, and other bits I'd have a different opinion.

Would absolutely agree that the Germans were not the sole aggressors. Not by a long chalk.

I'd offer a different opinion on Britain's relationship with Germany. It is true that there was a naval arms race and Germany certainly antagonised Britain in this, but it was over by 1913. The British produced bigger and more ships in response to the German threat, and the Germans were left with a choice to make: continue to compete with Britain in the naval field at the expense of the army or vice versa. They chose the latter and conceded defeat to Britain. The Germans weren't really our competitor, never had been. It is true that we shared the odd competing interest, but nothing like the shared designs as our real competitors: France and Russia. Britain had generally been on good terms with both Austria and Germany but it was decided around 1880s/1890s that the best policy was to keep our enemies close to our chest, and so we dropped Austria and Germany and began to build relations with our enemies France and Russia. It is often assumed that Germany must have been a great threat to Britain due to industrial strength, but the Germans weren't really interested in the places we were interested in. So, really, yes, the Pax Britannica tells a story, but let's say the Germans were seen as no more of a danger than the French or Russians. Except one thing, the British felt it was too much of a risk to take for anyone to have control of the North West ports of France, and did believe that the Germans would defeat France potentially causing havoc with our trade routes. I suppose what I'm trying to say is Britain would have lived with a dominant Germany on the continent provided they had stayed away from North West France.

Yes, Moltke did dilute the German plan, and for a sign of the German feeling about the war more than one of the senior politicians had a nervous breakdown. The French did push into Germany and were routed. One of only two armies in history to lose so many men in a fortnight, upwards of a quarter of a million men, and come back to finish on the winning side.

In terms of Britain entering the war, the majority of the liberal cabinet were against the war and it was in the balance right up to the eve of war. The Belgium issue was the means to convince a few waverers and tip the balance in the favour of the hawks, but the Belgium issue was not really the reason for going to war. The main reason was the threat of the Germans controlling the North West ports of France, and Belgium was the appeal to pride.

 

[mickb2112]

I would agree with some of that, mate, and other bits I'd have a different opinion.

Would absolutely agree that the Germans were not the sole aggressors. Not by a long chalk.

I'd offer a different opinion on Britain's relationship with Germany. It is true that there was a naval arms race and Germany certainly antagonised Britain in this, but it was over by 1913. The British produced bigger and more ships in response to the German threat, and the Germans were left with a choice to make: continue to compete with Britain in the naval field at the expense of the army or vice versa. They chose the latter and conceded defeat to Britain. The Germans weren't really our competitor, never had been. It is true that we shared the odd competing interest, but nothing like the shared designs as our real competitors: France and Russia. Britain had generally been on good terms with both Austria and Germany but it was decided around 1880s/1890s that the best policy was to keep our enemies close to our chest, and so we dropped Austria and Germany and began to build relations with our enemies France and Russia. It is often assumed that Germany must have been a great threat to Britain due to industrial strength, but the Germans weren't really interested in the places we were interested in. So, really, yes, the Pax Britannica tells a story, but let's say the Germans were seen as no more of a danger than the French or Russians. Except one thing, the British felt it was too much of a risk to take for anyone to have control of the North West ports of France, and did believe that the Germans would defeat France potentially causing havoc with our trade routes. I suppose what I'm trying to say is Britain would have lived with a dominant Germany on the continent provided they had stayed away from North West France.

Yes, Moltke did dilute the German plan, and for a sign of the German feeling about the war more than one of the senior politicians had a nervous breakdown. The French did push into Germany and were routed. One of only two armies in history to lose so many men in a fortnight, upwards of a quarter of a million men, and come back to finish on the winning side.

In terms of Britain entering the war, the majority of the liberal cabinet were against the war and it was in the balance right up to the eve of war. The Belgium issue was the means to convince a few waverers and tip the balance in the favour of the hawks, but the Belgium issue was not really the reason for going to war. The main reason was the threat of the Germans controlling the North West ports of France, and Belgium was the appeal to pride.

I think for a long time Britain preferred the splendid isolation approach. Keep out of other countries way and concentrate on our colonies. Germany were growing and wanted some of what we had and that was a threat to our colonies and prosperity.

I always found the Belgium justification strange bearing in mind only a few years earlier King Leopold II of Belgium was responsible for the death of 2 million innocent civilians in the Congo. Hardly poor little plucky Belgium more like a tyrannical murderous regime.

How Britain could get on the Belgium independence cause when Britain themselves denied independence to millions of people across their empire. It was a convenient cause to get behind and even George V saw it as the reason Britain needed to go to war.

Maybe Britain would have been better served on entering the war to only use its naval supremacy and stay out of the land war but undoubtedly there was no such option available. It was all or nothing.

 

[Locke's SAFC]

I think for a long time Britain preferred the splendid isolation approach. Keep out of other countries way and concentrate on our colonies. Germany were growing and wanted some of what we had and that was a threat to our colonies and prosperity.

I always found the Belgium justification strange bearing in mind only a few years earlier King Leopold II of Belgium was responsible for the death of 2 million innocent civilians in the Congo. Hardly poor little plucky Belgium more like a tyrannical murderous regime.

How Britain could get on the Belgium independence cause when Britain themselves denied independence to millions of people across their empire. It was a convenient cause to get behind and even George V saw it as the reason Britain needed to go to war.

Maybe Britain would have been better served on entering the war to only use its naval supremacy and stay out of the land war but undoubtedly there was no such option available. It was all or nothing.

The Kaiser certainly had grand ambitions, but generally the Germans looked to continental Europe as their sphere of interest. Yes, the Kaiser decided to build a navy to compete with Britain, but when they conceded defeat prior to WW1 they effectively gave up on any design to challenge Britain's trade around the world.

In terms of plucky Belgium, the issue was one of honouring agreements. It was felt that had Britain not intervened it would have rendered any agreement with Britain useless, thereafter losing allies.

 

[mickb2112]

The Kaiser certainly had grand ambitions, but generally the Germans looked to continental Europe as their sphere of interest. Yes, the Kaiser decided to build a navy to compete with Britain, but when they conceded defeat prior to WW1 they effectively gave up on any design to challenge Britain's trade around the world.

In terms of plucky Belgium, the issue was one of honouring agreements. It was felt that had Britain not intervened it would have rendered any agreement with Britain useless, thereafter losing allies.

It was an agreement almost 100 years old, surely they wouldn`t have held that against them?

 

[Locke's SAFC]

It was an agreement almost 100 years old, surely they wouldn`t have held that against them?

I suppose that was a pre United Nations and International Law world.

And, so business was done through binding alliances and pacts between nations.

Why have an alliance with Britain when they can't be trusted to honour their part of the bargain?

That was the feeling.

 

[mickb2112]

I suppose that was a pre United Nations and International Law world.

And, so business was done through binding alliances and pacts between nations.

Why have an alliance with Britain when they can't be trusted to honour their part of the bargain?

That was the feeling.

I agree with your point but the lives of almost 1 million British men was a high price to pay for maintaining the honour of a nation but as you say, if Britain didn`t honour that, who would honour their alliance with Britain if we were attacked ??!!

 

[smoker]

The Kaiser certainly had grand ambitions, but generally the Germans looked to continental Europe as their sphere of interest. Yes, the Kaiser decided to build a navy to compete with Britain, but when they conceded defeat prior to WW1 they effectively gave up on any design to challenge Britain's trade around the world.

In terms of plucky Belgium, the issue was one of honouring agreements. It was felt that had Britain not intervened it would have rendered any agreement with Britain useless, thereafter losing allies.

Horsplop, Google Weltpolitik.

I always found the Belgium justification strange bearing in mind only a few years earlier King Leopold II of Belgium was responsible for the death of 2 million innocent civilians in the Congo. Hardly poor little plucky Belgium more like a tyrannical murderous regime.

You need to stop looking at history through 2015 glasses. Africans were regarded as savages in the early 1900's.

Also, Britain was compelled to protect Belgium by the Treaty of London 1839.

 

[Cockney Mackem]

99 years ago today those lads went into battle, brave as lions, regardless of flawed tactics.

God Bless those lads, and what they did for us.

Utmost respect for those who served and what they went through

It compounds the tragedy for those soldiers though, that the governments who put them in harm's way didn't have a real justification for doing so. There was no existential threat, no one was actually defending their country. In the end it was just a failure to keep the peace and too many leaders not knowing or caring what war costs.

 

[smoker]

Utmost respect for those who served and what they went through

It compounds the tragedy for those soldiers though, that the governments who put them in harm's way didn't have a real justification for doing so. There was no existential threat, no one was actually defending their country. In the end it was just a failure to keep the peace and too many leaders not knowing or caring what war costs.

Yawn.

Tell that to the French.

 

[Cockney Mackem]

We were also worried about the rise of German power, and potential impact to our Empire, I think the general opinion was that Germany needed to be stopped, of course history would say it did not work out as hoped.

There were so many reasons used to justify the war, none of which made a bit of difference to the fate of the lads at the sharp end, but they must have been a magnificent bunch of lads all the same.

A magnificent bunch of lads who could and should have been doing something other than dying to settle all the old scores of the crowned heads of Europe. Like building the modern Britain that Asquith was trying to deliver, then living in it and bringing up their families in it.

That sort of hand wringing, soft cock thinking is precisely why WW2 happened.

Jesus.

 

[Locke's SAFC]

Horsplop, Google Weltpolitik.

I don't need to google, mate.

Germany was actually quite a peaceful country by and large, and what is monumentally inarguable is that they certainly didn't invade the number of countries that Britain did.

A cursory glance at history will tell you this, and, to be frank, argument by appeal to google is for bairns.

I agree with your point but the lives of almost 1 million British men was a high price to pay for maintaining the honour of a nation but as you say, if Britain didn`t honour that, who would honour their alliance with Britain if we were attacked ??!!

It's often said that people thought it would be over by Christmas, yes people in the street. But, the politicians knew what was coming and that was a long, protracted, destructive war.

I love the bit where the Germans pluck our conceited protagonist from a collapsed mine tunnel and tell him ze vor iss over.

People like you do my nut in, Smoker, because you're such a clever **** who actually knows nothing.

Clearly Birdsong is fiction, but the whole fascination with WW1 is Romanticism in part. The end of innocence etc. Birdsong simply taps into a wider view.

And, there was a certain amount of chivalry. The Germans gave a bow to their victors on cease fire because they all knew, winners and losers, assuming there is such a thing, that respect was due to all quarters.

Your best bet is to do less talking and more listening.

That sort of hand wringing, soft cock thinking is precisely why WW2 happened.

Except it didn't.

British foreign policy in continental Europe was always to keep out wherever possible.

I believe WW1 was the first time in history we sent a land army to continental Europe at the outbreak of war, although the Crimean War may have been similar.

This whole 'appeasement' thing is propaganda for the pro-war types. In reality, Chamberlain's policy towards Germany was a continuation of British foreign policy, not a change. Britain attempted to maintain a balance in Europe, always, not tell countries where German speakers should live for example.

Also, the feeling in Britain, not just among politicians, was that Germany had been hard done to at Versailles and in the event Germany wants to re-assimilate Germans into Germany then that's a reasonable argument and what's it got to do with us anyway.

There was no appetite for war against Germany in Britain, and Chamberlain was usual in this, as opposed to being out on his own. Because, he followed traditional British foreign policy, and if the politicians who ruined our centuries of innovation and hard work had thought something similar in the run up to WW1 then I'm fairly sure that we'd be in a much better state than we are today.

Churchill of course was what is termed a 'hawk' and was heavily involved with the war-mongering side in the run up to WW1 - what a tragic mistake for this country.

 

[smoker]

I don't need to google, mate.

Germany was actually quite a peaceful country by and large, and what is monumentally inarguable is that they certainly didn't invade the number of countries that Britain did.

A cursory glance at history will tell you this, and, to be frank, argument by appeal to google is for bairns.



It's often said that people thought it would be over by Christmas, yes people in the street. But, the politicians knew what was coming and that was a long, protracted, destructive war.



People like you do my nut in, Smoker, because you're such a clever **** who actually knows nothing.

Clearly Birdsong is fiction, but the whole fascination with WW1 is Romanticism in part. The end of innocence etc. Birdsong simply taps into a wider view.

And, there was a certain amount of chivalry. The Germans gave a bow to their victors on cease fire because they all knew, winners and losers, assuming there is such a thing, that respect was due to all quarters.

Your best bet is to do less talking and more listening.



Except it didn't.

British foreign policy in continental Europe was always to keep out wherever possible.

I believe WW1 was the first time in history we sent a land army to continental Europe at the outbreak of war, although the Crimean War may have been similar.

This whole 'appeasement' thing is propaganda for the pro-war types. In reality, Chamberlain's policy towards Germany was a continuation of British foreign policy, not a change. Britain attempted to maintain a balance in Europe, always, not tell countries where German speakers should live for example.

Also, the feeling in Britain, not just among politicians, was that Germany had been hard done to at Versailles and in the event Germany wants to re-assimilate Germans into Germany then that's a reasonable argument and what's it got to do with us anyway.

There was no appetite for war against Germany in Britain, and Chamberlain was usual in this, as opposed to being out on his own. Because, he followed traditional British foreign policy, and if the politicians who ruined our centuries of innovation and hard work had thought something similar in the run up to WW1 then I'm fairly sure that we'd be in a much better state than we are today.

Churchill of course was what is termed a 'hawk' and was heavily involved with the war-mongering side in the run up to WW1 - what a tragic mistake for this country.

Are you moshpit in disguise?

'Germany was peaceful' FFS Google (yes you do need it) the Herero and Namaqua genocide in Southwest Africa. Also German complicity in the Armenian genocide.

Do you know anything about history? All I can see is someone spouting tired old appeasement era 'truisms' that were discredited the day Fritz Fischer was first given unfettered access to Imperial German archives.

If you think Versaille was harsh, Google Brest-Litovsk. I think you'll find the Junckers and Hitler's idea of Greater Germany went far beyond uniting ethnic Germans.