The Somme

[Dcdrac]

my great uncle missed this one but was killed at Paschendale, his name is on the Menin Gate at Ypres.

It jsut sums up for me politicians thorwing away others lives for their venal ambitions and selling it as somehing noble.

[gumboot]

Who was he with?

Passchendaele was very significant (in terms of casualties) for my country (New Zealand). Just read an excellent and staggering book about it by a New Zealand historian

"Massacre At Passchendaele" by Glyn Harper

-Andrew

[Zep]

Australians too. And at Ypres.

Have we learned anything from that yet?

[gumboot]

I think the army learned a lot...

The problem with the lesson "war=bad" is the entire world has to learn that lesson simultaneously, otherwise it just starts up again, and those that don't join in are lost to history.

-Andrew

[Zep]

And some people actually like it too.

I've heard a number of WWI veterans talk about their experiences of war, and all of them without exception said it was [rule-8]ing awful and should not be repeated ever again. I value their advice highly...

[chriswl]

Have we learned anything from that yet?
I think we did learn something from the Great War. It changed the views of politicians from the nineteenth century idea of war as "politics by other means" to the modern liberal view of war as something terrible to be indulged in only as a last resort.

I say modern idea - one of the things that most annoys me about Blair and the self-styled "liberal interventionists" is that they have forgotten this and see war simply as an arm of foreign policy.

[Skeptic]

The problem is that war, as awful as it is, is still sometimes better than the alternative--be it surrender or genocide or enslavement. The reason WWI in particular seems a waste of life--which it was--is that the goals of that war, both tactically and strategically, were pointless.

But more people (especially civilians) died in WWII than in WWI, and nobody in his right mind would say that's a war that should not have been fought. The reason? It had a goal worth fighting for.

One should be very, very careful in deciding that this or that a goal is worth the lives of the younger generation, but one should also be very, very careful in deciding that NOTHING is worth the lives of the younger generation--including stopping both the younger and the older generation from being enslaved or genocided.

The attitude in question is best seen by the 1930s Oxford and Cambridge students who, as Hitler was gobbling up half of Europe, decided in an official communique that they will "not fight for king and country" since no goal is worth fighting for. They, too, "learned the lesson" from WWI-unfortunately it was the completely wrong one, namely, pacificism. I mean, you don't want war AGAIN, do you?

To be fair, it goes without saying that the vast majority of the Oxford and Cambridge students who supported the "I will not fight" declaration at the time had, of course, joined the military when WWII was finally declared, and many of them died bravely in that war.

This shows that, of course, they were neither real pacifists nor such cowards or morally degenerate people who would refuse to fight for their country when it was really needed. What it shows is that the "lesson"--pacifism--they "learned" from WWI was really not much more than an emotional reaction, which they didn't think throught.

[rjh01]

Is it just me or are there plenty of examples of wars that are pointless? You have already mentioned WW1. How about Vietnam? Or is that too recent for you? Wars of Independence are other examples.

[StewartP]

The wars seem pointless after the event. During the war both sides are convinced of their right in the conflict.

In the Zimbabwean war of independance, my brother fought in the Rhodesian artillery. I was fortunately too young. We were convinced we werefighting for democracy and western civilisation against an army of terrorising bolshevics. We were constantly told of atriocities carried out by the enemy - babies killed, peoples lips and ears cut off etc.

After independance I found myself working, joking and drinking with a Zimbabwean who had fought on the other side and he told me some of his war stories. With a former enemy now a drinking partner I found myself thinking "What was that all about then"?

[Dcdrac]

Who was he with?

Passchendaele was very significant (in terms of casualties) for my country (New Zealand). Just read an excellent and staggering book about it by a New Zealand historian

"Massacre At Passchendaele" by Glyn Harper

-Andrew

2nd Royal Fusilaiars i think, it was spelt differntly on the carving hen i went there, got a picture of his name.

[Dcdrac]

i am not a pacifist I will fight for the right reason, to prevent genocide is one of them, but asking me to fight for mud, money or a flag is a waste of time.

[Deus Ex Machina]

my great uncle missed this one but was killed at Paschendale, his name is on the Menin Gate at Ypres.




My grandfather fought at the Somme in the Warwickshire Regiment. He only spoke of it twice to me and both times it brought him to tears. He joined up in 1915. I really cannot imagine what he went through.

[gumboot]

WWI is a really weird war...

On the surface, it should not have been much different to any of the earlier European Land Wars - armes of fixed numbers fight a brief campaign until one army is depleted to the point of defeat.

Except two things were new about WWI - nationalism and the media.

There is a very real argument that the media made WWI what it was - in the initial stages there were massive numbers of volunteers signing up - mainly because of the rampant nationalist fervour present in europe, and the patriotic rampage in the news (detailed reports of the war etc.). This essentially meant each army had unlimited troops.

Think back a hundred years, to the Hundred Day War. Imagine if both Napoleon and the Duke of Wellington had a virtually unlimited supply of eager volunteers ready to die for King and Country.

No doubt that war would have become an endless entrenched war as well.

In military history, both World Wars are anomolies - for different reasons. The terror at the end of WW2 was that this was going to become the NORM! But things went back to normal. Wars generally are localised, brief, and involve minimal casualties (relative to overall populations), the obvious exception being atrocities which have always cropped up in warfare here and there.

Korea *could* have become the genuine "war to end all wars" (I honestly do not believe the human race would survive another "total war" like WW2) but fortunately cooler heads prevailed.

I still hold that "war is an extension of diplomacy by other means" but it is too easy to take this the wrong way (it can be seen that it's okay to go to war INSTEAD of using diplomacy). The meaning behind this claim was you used military force when you had exhausted peaceful diplomacy and you were at an impasse. You partook in a brief military operation that gave one side or the other more bargaining power, and then you brokered a peace and returned to the negotiating table.

That is how modern war is usually fought, both before WWI and in the present (think the Persian Gulf War or any of the many interventions). WWI just never got to the point where one side had an advantage because each side had endless reinforcements. And WW2 is entirely unique in world history.

-Andrew

[Deus Ex Machina]

WWI is a really weird war...

On the surface, it should not have been much different to any of the earlier European Land Wars - armes of fixed numbers fight a brief campaign until one army is depleted to the point of defeat.

Except two things were new about WWI - nationalism and the media.

I agree that WWI is a weird war but your attribution is flawed. The Crimean War for example was one created by Nationalism and the media. Jingoism is part of its linguistic legacy. Would there have even been an American war of INdependence without a) nationalism and b) broadsheet media?


There is a very real argument that the media made WWI what it was - in the initial stages there were massive numbers of volunteers signing up - mainly because of the rampant nationalist fervour present in europe, and the patriotic rampage in the news (detailed reports of the war etc.). This essentially meant each army had unlimited troops.


The military build up across Europe had been ongoing since at least 1900. It didn't just leap into existence in 1914. The British Army in 1914 was woefully outmatched in manpower at the start which, in part, led to the stalemate that was to become the war.

Far from having unlimited troops - conscription was introduced precisely because the amount of volunteers was insufficient for the war machine.


Think back a hundred years, to the Hundred Day War. Imagine if both Napoleon and the Duke of Wellington had a virtually unlimited supply of eager volunteers ready to die for King and Country.


No doubt that war would have become an endless entrenched war as well.


Hmm. I don't think so - you are not taking into account the vastly increased populations. The Battle of Waterloo - for a one day battle - was an enormous butchery. It wasn't surpassed, AFAIK, until Gettysburg and then the Somme.


In military history, both World Wars are anomolies - for different reasons. The terror at the end of WW2 was that this was going to become the NORM! But things went back to normal. Wars generally are localised, brief, and involve minimal casualties (relative to overall populations), the obvious exception being atrocities which have always cropped up in warfare here and there.


I think you generalize incorrectly. Try checking out the history of the Taiping rebellion in China, fought for 13 years from 1851 at a cost of 20 million lives.

Personally I think a better thesis would be that it was the first time that fully industrialized countries went to war. It was possible to keep and supply huge armies in the field - continuously.


Korea *could* have become the genuine "war to end all wars" (I honestly do not believe the human race would survive another "total war" like WW2) but fortunately cooler heads prevailed.


On this I agree with you


I still hold that "war is an extension of diplomacy by other means" but it is too easy to take this the wrong way (it can be seen that it's okay to go to war INSTEAD of using diplomacy). The meaning behind this claim was you used military force when you had exhausted peaceful diplomacy and you were at an impasse. You partook in a brief military operation that gave one side or the other more bargaining power, and then you brokered a peace and returned to the negotiating table.


I think you oversimplify. Going back to your Napoleonic example - the war was fought until Napoleon was defeated. It was fought in Spain and Portugal as well as Russia and across the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. It was fought by an alliance.


That is how modern war is usually fought, both before WWI and in the present (think the Persian Gulf War or any of the many interventions). WWI just never got to the point where one side had an advantage because each side had endless reinforcements. And WW2 is entirely unique in world history.
-Andrew

Not at all unique - the Napoleonic Wars can be compared to WWII - smaller in industrial scale of course and with much lower populations, but there was an alliance, it was fought on many fronts and in most available theatres of operation.

As for modern war being fought that way - you have skipped over the French in Vietnam, The Iran/Iraq war or even Bosnia.

[gumboot]

I agree that WWI is a weird war but your attribution is flawed. The Crimean War for example was one created by Nationalism and the media. Jingoism is part of its linguistic legacy. Would there have even been an American war of INdependence without a) nationalism and b) broadsheet media?


It wasn't the "presence" of these things - they have always existed in some form. It was their significance. It wasn't just that there was some nationalism, it siezed the entire continent of Europe. It was out of control.

The media had traditionally been very factual and clinical in report of wars - look at "The Times" coverage of the Crimean War, for example. In WWI it was incredibly emotive, often factually wrong (reports of various sides commiting atrocities against civilians, for example) and very one-sided. This merely fired up even more nationalist fervour.





Far from having unlimited troops - conscription was introduced precisely because the amount of volunteers was insufficient for the war machine.


Conscription wasn't introduced in Britain until February 1916. For other allied nations it was even later (virtually all New Zealanders were volunteers, for example). The war began, as any other European land war. It was expected to be brief. But initially both sides were flooded with volunteer enlistments from their populations (due to nationalism and media hype). This meant they could indefinately reinforce their positions, thus leading to the stalemate of trench warfare.

Once trench warfare was established, most attempts at returning to manouver warfare resulted in massive casualties and little gain. As things mired in the mud the supply of volunteers became inadequate and at this point conscription was initiated - resulting in a continuation of immobile warfare.



Hmm. I don't think so - you are not taking into account the vastly increased populations. The Battle of Waterloo - for a one day battle - was an enormous butchery. It wasn't surpassed, AFAIK, until Gettysburg and then the Somme.

Waterloo was cataclysmic, but the casualties were still a fraction of the population. Yes, the population of Britain during that time increased significantly - it more than doubled. But Wellington's army, and the army he faced, were a fraction of the size of the Allied and German armies of WWI. There were about 188,000 total combatants at Waterloo, of which some 47,000 were killed and wounded (15,000 anglo-allied).

In contrast at the Somme (1916) the British Army alone suffered over 57,000 casualties on the first day. The relative ratios (comparative to national polulation ratio) are close-ish - with the Somme being somewhat higher, comparative to overall national population.

Yet with the aid of reinforcements, the Somme (which took a heavier comparative toll) was able to continue for 4 1/2 months with over 600,000 casualties. So comparing the two, there was every reason the Waterloo campaign could have turned into a similar entrenched war (relative to overall population sizes) had each side had reinforcements. As it was, they did not, and had to fight with what they had.



I think you generalize incorrectly. Try checking out the history of the Taiping rebellion in China, fought for 13 years from 1851 at a cost of 20 million lives.


While this was certainly not a normal war either, bear in mind what I said - that modern wars are usually brief, with minimal casualties relative to population, excluding atrocities.

A significant percentage of the 20 million deaths in the Taiping rebellion were civilians, not combatants. Also, bear in mind percentage of population - China had something like 400 million people at the time.

It is questionable if the Taiping rebellion qualifies as a modern war, however even if it does, it was a civil war, and civil wars are always traditionally a little different. As an example, the American Civil War is generally regarded as the first modern war (though some argue Crimea), yet it was also irregular in that it involved huge numbers of casualties. It was also a civil war. Likewise, the Irish Civil War - involved high casualties, was not an extension of diplomacy, and lasted a long time.

I now think I should have clarified that WWI and WWII were anomolies amongst INTERNATIONAL modern war (i.e. war between two states). I now acknowledge that civil wars are different again.



I think you oversimplify. Going back to your Napoleonic example - the war was fought until Napoleon was defeated. It was fought in Spain and Portugal as well as Russia and across the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. It was fought by an alliance.


The Napoleonic Wars were not a modern war, and they were not fought outside Europe (with the exception of naval warfare). My comments were in regard to the way modern war is fought.



Not at all unique - the Napoleonic Wars can be compared to WWII - smaller in industrial scale of course and with much lower populations, but there was an alliance, it was fought on many fronts and in most available theatres of operation.


I don't agree. The Napoleonic Wars followed a single army (France) as they moved about Europe, with naval battles as a side issue. World War Two was simultaneously fought in four different theatres, with multiple world powers on each side. It is the only example of Total War in world history. Warfare was continuous, fought equally on air/sea/land, and rather than conflict being isolated to armies in the field, the battle was waged against all aspects of the war machine - including the bombing of civilians and infrastructure.


As for modern war being fought that way - you have skipped over the French in Vietnam, The Iran/Iraq war or even Bosnia.

The First Indochina War was fairly typical by modern war standards - a series of brief escalating conflicts, ultimately ending with a final battle (Dien Bien Phu) that gave one side a distinct advantage over the other, resulting in a peace settlement (The Geneva Accords).

The Iran/Iraq War was also an exception to this standard way of fighting Modern War, however unlike both WWI and WWII it was very localised.

Bosnia was a civil war, so first into that different category. :)

-Andrew

[rjh01]

You have left out a few things. Send troops against machine guns and they will be slaughtered. Add in barbed wire and mud that will slow down the advance and that increases the slaughter. Plus the leadership was safe miles behind the front lines, not knowing or caring what happened at the front line. WW1 was the first major war with these things. American civil war was close behind.

WW2 was different because of tanks and aircraft.

[Almo]

My understanding of the stalemate in WWI was that it had a lot to do with technology. Previously, cavalry helped keep armies moving. The machine gun made mobility difficult, and encouraged the trenches. The planes and tanks of WWII allowed armies to regain their mobility. Much of the story of WWI military technology is the search for something to break the defensive impasse caused by the combination of trenches and machine guns. A very sad and dark history, that.

I know rjh01 has said essentially this, just above. But this is what I was going to say as I read the thread, got down here and saw he said this. So consider this an independent affirmation of rjh01's post. :)

[kittynh]

hey, my relative drove an ambulance. Then went on to be a pacifist with the Lincoln Brigade.

the saying goes, "I'm willing to die for my country, but I'm not willing to kill for my country".

One of the posters I respect most on this board served jail time rather than serve in Vietnam. He could have stayed in England (where he was attending school). He could have gone to Canada. He served jail time to make the point that Vietnam was wrong. The best part is when he told me about how he would talk to the inmates about how wrong the war was, and they were leaving jail trained activists and anti war. Finally they didn't WANT the objectors in jail! But too bad, a person that is a pacifist that is willing to put his beliefs on the line has nothing but respect from me.

[ImaginalDisc]

But more people (especially civilians) died in WWII than in WWI, and nobody in his right mind would say that's a war that should not have been fought. The reason? It had a goal worth fighting for.


I'm sure you mean that the Allies were well justified in defending themselves from subjugation and extermination, because WWII was totally unjustified.

[Deus Ex Machina]

Gumboot - lest it become lost in the back and forth of point and counterpoint - I am enjoying the debate and thank you for the discussion.


It wasn't the "presence" of these things - they have always existed in some form. It was their significance. It wasn't just that there was some nationalism, it siezed the entire continent of Europe. It was out of control.

I guess you could make the case that this is true for Germany which had been being conglomerated prior to the turn of the century and for which this was a new expression of Nationalism - the kaiser, the challenging of British naval supremacy and so forth. I have not read German newspapers from that time so I have no real basis for evaluating that point.

However as far as the British Press is concerned, this was nothing new at all


The media had traditionally been very factual and clinical in report of wars - look at "The Times" coverage of the Crimean War, for example. In WWI it was incredibly emotive, often factually wrong (reports of various sides commiting atrocities against civilians, for example) and very one-sided. This merely fired up even more nationalist fervour.


I think you are extrapolating from Russell's fine reportage in the Crimean peninsula but in order for your thesis to stand you would need to look from before the war started. Prior to the Crimean war the press was, by and large, very much for it, castigating Palmerston et al for being slow. Palmerston himself was busy fanning the flames on March 7th in the Reform Club with a very jingoistic speech.

My point is not that the lead up to WWI, especially in June July and August of 1914 was inflamed by the press - it certainly was but that this inflamement" was nothing new.



Conscription wasn't introduced in Britain until February 1916. For other allied nations it was even later (virtually all New Zealanders were volunteers, for example). The war began, as any other European land war. It was expected to be brief. But initially both sides were flooded with volunteer enlistments from their populations (due to nationalism and media hype). This meant they could indefinately reinforce their positions, thus leading to the stalemate of trench warfare.


That is 18 months after the war started - not exactly "indefinite". Within the confines of expecting a short war you may have a point but by early 1915 the IGS had abandoned that view.


Once trench warfare was established, most attempts at returning to manouver warfare resulted in massive casualties and little gain. As things mired in the mud the supply of volunteers became inadequate and at this point conscription was initiated - resulting in a continuation of immobile warfare.


The supplies of troops, volunteers and conscripts both doesn't really matter much if there is no way to keep them supplied with munitions and rations. In my own estimation the one thing that kept this war going was the fact that the armies - bigger than had ever taken the field in modern times - could be kept supplied by the newly industrialized countries. One of the reasons European land wars had been short was due to the necessity of arming and supplying a large body of men and keeping them effective and in the field. Not easy to do with horse drawn carts and foraging teams. Armies had a habit of disintegrating in winter.


Waterloo was cataclysmic, but the casualties were still a fraction of the population. Yes, the population of Britain during that time increased significantly - it more than doubled. But Wellington's army, and the army he faced, were a fraction of the size of the Allied and German armies of WWI. There were about 188,000 total combatants at Waterloo, of which some 47,000 were killed and wounded (15,000 anglo-allied).

In contrast at the Somme (1916) the British Army alone suffered over 57,000 casualties on the first day. The relative ratios (comparative to national polulation ratio) are close-ish - with the Somme being somewhat higher, comparative to overall national population.


True enough. Of course Waterloo was a decisive engagement whereas (as you point out) the first day of the Somme was merely a precursor to hell


Yet with the aid of reinforcements, the Somme (which took a heavier comparative toll) was able to continue for 4 1/2 months with over 600,000 casualties. So comparing the two, there was every reason the Waterloo campaign could have turned into a similar entrenched war (relative to overall population sizes) had each side had reinforcements. As it was, they did not, and had to fight with what they had.


As for Waterloo I think that the reason why it did not turn into a campaign rather than just a decisive battle and victory was because the French Army, at the end of the battle, disintegrated. If they had been able to pull out of the engagement and beat an orderly retreat then it would probably have been a different story.

But, harking back to my point, I doubt that two large agrarian economies could have supported extended campaigning for very long.


While this was certainly not a normal war either, bear in mind what I said - that modern wars are usually brief, with minimal casualties relative to population, excluding atrocities.


I know that is what you said - however I do not think the facts bear your assertion out. I am not sure where we are drawing the line in terms of "modern wars" but if we are talking about the post industrial revolution period assuming that to be somewhere close to the end of the 19th century then we have (off the top of my head) The Boer War, The Russo-Japanese war, WWI, Manchuria, Ethiopia, WWII, Korea, The Pakistan-INdia wars, The Bangladesh war, Vietnam, The Israeli war of Independence, the six day war and the Yom Kippur war, the Iran Iraq war, Russia/Afghanistan, the Falklands, Gulf War, Afghanistan (II), and then Iraq. There are probably a couple I have missed and there have been some I have deliberately omitted such as the Irish uprising of 1920 - 21, the Spanish Civil War, the Russian Civil War and the Chinese Civil war.

Of all those conflicts about the only ones that fit your relatively quick time frame are the 6 day war and the Yom Kippur War - though there are a couple of the INdia Pakistan wars that were pretty quick.


A significant percentage of the 20 million deaths in the Taiping rebellion were civilians, not combatants. Also, bear in mind percentage of population - China had something like 400 million people at the time.


I would agree with you - I was meely pointing out that there have been devastating conflicts that encompassed large death tolls that had preceded WWI.


It is questionable if the Taiping rebellion qualifies as a modern war, however even if it does, it was a civil war, and civil wars are always traditionally a little different. As an example, the American Civil War is generally regarded as the first modern war (though some argue Crimea), yet it was also irregular in that it involved huge numbers of casualties. It was also a civil war. Likewise, the Irish Civil War - involved high casualties, was not an extension of diplomacy, and lasted a long time.


I would agree that the Taiping rebellion would not really be a "modern" war. But there again what defines a "modern" war?


I now think I should have clarified that WWI and WWII were anomolies amongst INTERNATIONAL modern war (i.e. war between two states). I now acknowledge that civil wars are different again.


OK, I think I track with you on this as regards civil wars but I am not sure what the anomaly is that you are pointing out.


The Napoleonic Wars were not a modern war, and they were not fought outside Europe (with the exception of naval warfare). My comments were in regard to the way modern war is fought.


I would not name the Napoleonic war as modern either. I was using it to illustrate that it has similarities and that those similarities make the conflicts of WW1 and WW2 look a lot less anomalous.



I don't agree. The Napoleonic Wars followed a single army (France) as they moved about Europe, with naval battles as a side issue.


forgive me here but this is not the case - the French Armies in 1808 - 09 were fighting on two completely different fronts - in Austria (under Bonaparte) and in the Peninsular under various Marshals and Joseph Bonaparte. The estimated size of the French miltary during this period - approximately 1.5 million.


World War Two was simultaneously fought in four different theatres, with multiple world powers on each side. It is the only example of Total War in world history. Warfare was continuous, fought equally on air/sea/land, and rather than conflict being isolated to armies in the field, the battle was waged against all aspects of the war machine - including the bombing of civilians and infrastructure.


Yes indeed - I would completely agree but where I differ from you is that I do not think this is some sort of anomaly. The armies in 1939 were vastly better equipped than in 1914 or indeed in 1900. But all that illustrates is that military technology continued to develop. There is no doubt that WWII was a bigger war but that doesn't make anomalous.

[Carnivore]

I don't agree. The Napoleonic Wars followed a single army (France) as they moved about Europe, with naval battles as a side issue.

-Andrew

Sorry to butt into your discussion but I have to take particular issue with this point. The land war was (mostly) confined to Europe precisely because of Britain's naval superiority.

The battle of the Nile wasnt a sidehow, it was the decisive blow to Napoleons goals in Africa and beyond. Trafalgar was the nail in the coffin of his imperial ambitions.

The strategic advantage of Britain's control of the sea was incalculable. It meant that Britain could operate on the European mainland while France was incapable of invading England. It meant that France was unable to compete with British commerce, with catastrophic consequences for her economy. The Royal Navy was the military force that kept Napoleon locked in Europe, and which made possible the British Army's decisive involvement in the land war.