The Somme, Defeat into Victory

[Take on me]

Did anybody see the documentary on the BBC called The Somme, Defeat into Victory? Any thoughts?

I thought that it was good but a little inaccurate. It made it appear that the whole battle revolved around Thiepval. It got the number of dead wrong at the end (quoting the number of casualties as being dead). It never mentioned the attritional effects of the battle and neglected to mention that 1918 was a full year away and the British Army still had a lot to learn about war. Neither Haig nor Rawlinson were even mentioned or the effect that the battle had on the German High command (ie the withdrawel to the Hindenburg Line in 1917 and the decision to embark on unrestricted submarine warfare). Although I thought that it wasn't too bad and helped to counter some of the Lions led by Donkeys stuff. I also felt that it was greatly edited and was supposed to be much longer.

Anybody agree/diagree?

JGM

[Guest tafski]

just watched it thought it was a good peice

but i still believe lions were led by donkeys

bruce

[armourersergeant]

I thought it had a balanced appeal to it and was not surprised to see that two of the 'advisers' were Gary Sheffield and Peter Hart. That said it did seem to make it appear a small battlefield. It could have done with being another hour longer and giving a better balance to the rest of the battle as it raged.

However, it was one of the better docu/drama's I have seen and did attempt to give a balanced view, showing how commanders, even at the expense of their troops did learn.

I have taped it and will watch it again to get a better opinion.

regards

Arm

[Neil Mackenzie]

To be fair you are not going to cover all aspects of this 5 month battle in a 1 hour programme. They did not directly mention the attritional aim of the battle but I didn't think the objective was attritional on 1st July - it became that once the breakthrough objective had failed.

Although the German aspect was reasonably well represented I don't think it covered the long term impact on the German army or commented directly on the ability of the German defenders - although I suppose this was inferred.

I liked the reconstructions -Taff Gillinghams influence obvious here.

Overall I thought it was good.

[Garron]

Watched it and I enjoyed it,

nice to see a close up of them loading blanks into the rifles that kinda spoiled the feeling.

Garron

[6th Shropshires]

I would say its one of the best of that sort, re-enactment, that I have seen. To get it 100% right, well that is impossible, if people moan about this one, well I'll keep my throught to myself on that.

Annette

[garydeighton]

I also thought that the programme was about an hour too short although I concede that no matter how long it was we'd still feel short changed. I also thought that the July 14th night attack should have been mentioned as another example of lessons gradually being learned and commanders beginning to become more flexible.

I felt that there was a suggestion that after the Somme it was onwards and upwards for the British army and didn't address how steep the learning curve was that led to the 1918 advance.

I did think that the programme was very well done though and was better than Channel 4's The Somme shown earlier this year

[Stebie9173]

There is a DVD out tomorrow. I would think that might weigh in at more than an hour, plus some extras presumably?

Steve.

[Liam]

I thought the programme was excellent and was well put together. Although we would watch anything on the subject because we are interested I think that anyone who knew little about the battle would get something from it.

Thought of Taff Gillingham when watching the action scenes. I wonder whether any of his Pals were amongst the actors.

Liam

[Stebie9173]

The men were provided by Khaki Devils Ltd - Taff's "mob". Taff was also given credit as an advisor.

Steve.

[Take on me]

All very interesting. I suppose it is unfair to criticise for leaving things out when it is only an hour long. After all the battle lasted five months and the Somme was such a huge event that it is impossible to cover everything. I did feel that the action scenes were very good.

JGM

[Jimothy]

I enjoyed it too, an excellent programme. Shame that in tonites programming only 90 minutes (including the 5:15 item on the ceremonies yesterday) could be given over to this subject - compared to how much time has been given over to football and tennis. It's enough to make you want to go to prison for non-payment of the licence fee.

[treetop]

Excellent programme but ,like many i would have liked more detail and special effects scale to show the real effects of such a battle. Could it ever really match reality ? Good to see BBC realise that there is an audience out there for this type of programme instead of non stop property and food programmes.

[barrynee]

I thought in general it was quite good.

I also felt that it was feeling around trying to find a justification for the slaughter - almost as if the programme makers felt they had to - perhaps they felt lions and donkeys was too obvious.

I think the suggestion that the 1st of July failed because officers did not take the field with their men was wildly innacurate and disrepectful to the thousands of officers killed.

I als thought the central argument - which was essentially - we learned a lot of lessons so it was worth something is hugely ndermined by the fact that the war dragged on for 2 more years, the germans still were strong enough to launch the ludendorf offensicve in 18, and the war only ended when it did because of the US coming in.

[Bart150]

I als thought the central argument - which was essentially - we learned a lot of lessons so it was worth something is hugely ndermined by the fact that the war dragged on for 2 more years, the germans still were strong enough to launch the ludendorf offensicve in 18, and the war only ended when it did because of the US coming in.

I agree. I found the this theme of learning and improvement that the programme put forward so confidently and positively a really big turnoff.

It is surely true that each of the main armies developed improved tactics and more effective weaponry and equipment pretty much continuously from August 1914 through to November 1918.

But this programme gave the impression that most of the learning and improvement came in the five months July-November 1916, as opposed to the other 47 months of the war - and that most of this learning and improvement was done by the British as opposed to the French and Germans.

That is, as its dominant, positive message, echoed in its title, intended for every viewer to take away, it gave an impression which just isn't true.

[Rodge Dowson]

Just watched the programme, it covered quite a lot in an hour. my only thought is I would have liked it to have focused in more detail on the four main individual characters of the 16th L F, looking at pre-war lives and enlistment and the recruiting drives in Salford by Montague Barlow and the committee etc.

On the whole it linked together well and the re-enacted scenes were as good as any other. There is still I feel a need for a detailed full length film to be made about a 'Pals' battalion. Perhaps we may see this happen with the story of 'McCrae's battalion' of the 16th Royal Scots following on from the BBC Scotalnd 1 hour programme that I await seeing.

It would also have been nice to have had the leading battalion of the Salford Pals at Thiepval 1.7.16 the 15th mentioned by name. Still, it is a worthy tribute so well done to those connected.

Sorry to all that I did not make the trip over to the ceremony at Contalmaison but hope it went well, I am sure it did and look forward to seing the Manchester Scottish wreath later this year if I can. Keep up the great job all connected with the Hearts Great War Memorial Committee and friends..............

Rodge Dowson

[stiletto_33853]

One of the better programmes to date.

Andy

[historydavid]

I am not into the doings of the "browns" but two points struck me from the commentary.

1. On that first day the senior British army commanders were inflexible and followed the "plan" religeously even when better opportunities beckoned.

This corresponds with naval officers, who were afraid to use their own initative, because adherence to senior officers orders was expected, a good example is the Battle of Jutland.

2. The French troops had more succes and less casualties on that first day, the reason given was that they were more experienced.

The statement that they were more experienced seems at odds with the losses they had suffered upto that time. Surely they must have experienced the same problems as the British, having to replace experienced men with only partially trained troops (ie as Kithener's army). Did the French have easier objectives?

I would welcome any comments on my interpretation.

Best wishes

David

[DaveBrigg]

Down the pub tonight, several friends had made the effort to watch, and all were full of it. If you are given an hour to re-enact four months of the Somme it's hard to think how it could have been done better. It seemed to be balanced, and at least looked beyond 1st July. I hope the viewing figures will encourage a more detailed analysis in the future. Well done Taff.

[salientpoints]

Brushing criticisms and analysis to one side, pals should remember this is tv for the masses, its not an Open University factual epic presented by those in tweed jackets, it was designed to be part of the BBC's commemorations & remembrance for The Somme 90th and as a result this programme got a prime time BBC1 slot. With only an hour or 55mins to "educate & remember", what more fitting tribute to those that served and fell can you ask for?

Well done to Taff and the team involved and well done to the Beeb for planning it. May they continue in this way for other events in time.

Cheers

Ryan

[Take on me]

2. The French troops had more succes and less casualties on that first day, the reason given was that they were more experienced.

The statement that they were more experienced seems at odds with the losses they had suffered upto that time. Surely they must have experienced the same problems as the British, having to replace experienced men with only partially trained troops (ie as Kithener's army). Did the French have easier objectives?

The French did have a problem with men as more and more were fed into the slaughterhouse of Verdun. But they had far more effective infantry/artillery cooperation. Their infantry advanced in smaller groups employing fire and movement tactics rather then the wave attacks of many British units, thus while some French troops were inexperienced they were still using their experience of Artois, Champagne and Verdun to effect a more effective advance on the Somme. Their objectives were far more reasonable and I think their starting date on the 1st July was 9-30 am, two hours after the British. Therefore the German defenders of this area of the Somme were lulled into beleiving that the allied offensive had already begun, and it did not effect their area. Furthermore I think I have read somewhere that there were fewer German troops and machine guns holding this area of the lines.

JGM

[bmac]

Various matters:

1. Extraordinary that a documentary on the Somme can fail to mention either Haig or Rawlinson;

2. Reading the Official History's account of the action involving X Corps at Thiepval it does not quite square with the account given in the documentary. Morland had already ordered one brigade of the 49th Division into Thiepval Wood to support either the 36th or 32nd Divisions and was reluctant to use all of his reserves when the outcome of the attack on Thiepval was still uncertain. As this took place within 90 minutes of the start of the attack and while preparations were already under way to renew the attack on Thiepval this seems a reasonably prudent decision and not, as portrayed, a blinkered and inflexible one. Morland was well thought of by Haig (though not by Gough) and stayed as X Corps GOC.

3. Does not the list of senior officer casualties in Middlebrook's 'First Day on the Somme' give the lie to the assertion that one of the problems on 1st July was battalion COs not going over with their men? It may have been a local X Corps order (and only one battalion CO was a casualty there) but Middlebrook lists 52 'senior officer casualties' including two Brigadiers.

4. Learning the lessons? Extraordinary that the Bazentin ridge attack is not included in this list. But if lessons were learned what about: Guillemont, Mametz/Delville and High Woods, Ginchy, Le Transloy, second Serre, etc. Where is their evidence of lessons learned at these battles?

Overall, I found the battle scenes well done (although I don't believe the construction of the German trenches was as portrayed) but the analysis weak with a certain desperation to follow a particular agenda which ignored large swathes of the battle and the manner in which it was conducted.

[carninyj]

I'm no expert on the leadership in WW1 but i do find it strange that some of the cliches are still repeated so confidently.

I always feel that a lot of the rigid nature of the all attacks was down to lack of effective communication on the battlefield after troops had left the front lines, hence timetables, and that this programme did go some way to redress this by claiming that lessons were learned and techniques adapted, though not to the extent that they could fully overcome the superior technology of defence or the murderous effectiveness of modern weapons.

Any thoughts?

Regards

Carninyj

[AndyMacdonald]

I thought it was rubbish, from beginning to end. The recreations and old footage were the best parts. There was little context, and glaring chunks left out, ultimately leaving the viewer misinformed. How long will it be before the British public are presented with a balanced, if not true, account of the Somme? I for one am tired of this claptrap. If the learning curve on the Somme was so successful, please explain Le Transloy and Ancre. Why stop there, surely 3rd Ypres offers enough proof that the powers learned nothing - very little, at least - from teh Somme. This was a doco I would be embarassed to show my children, and was insulting to the men of all nations who fought on the Somme!

Andy M

[Take on me]

I for one am tired of this imperialist claptrap. If the learning curve on the Somme was so successful, please explain Le Transloy and Ancre. Why stop there, surely 3rd Ypres offers enough proof that the powers learned nothing - very little, at least - from the Somme.

To be honest I would not consider myself to be in any way an apologist for the many sins and appaling injustices of the British Empire. I think that the evidence does point to the fact that the British Army did learn a few lessons from the Somme, but I do not see how this makes me or anybody else an imperialist.

Certain lessons such as the creeping barrage were utilised during the first day of the Arras offensive when the British Army managed to advance much further and with fewer casualties then on the Somme. The number of British guns was far higher at the beginning of Arras and at Third Ypres creating a far higher density of artillery fire. Troop tactics were not as clumsy as on the Somme and more machine guns were used by British units. The problem is that this only showed that the British army was effective at large set peice battles and still had a great deal to learn about war. As the disastrous latter stages of both Arras and Passchendeale prove. It would only be in 1918 that the British Army was able to acheive the sort of tactical efficiency that meant that it could break through German lines.

This was one of my chief complaints about this documentary it ignored the latter stages of the Somme, Arras and Passchendeale, while over emphasising the 'learning curve' idea. It also seemed to feel that relieving the French at Verdun (an objective completed by the end of July) and this learning curve justified the battle. If anything justified the battle it was its attritional effects, but these were not mentioned by the documentary.

JGM