waffenlandser

[Shaun Springer]

[

I ask you give me a list of major industrial or commercial sites in the region at the time of the Big Push. Name me just one legitimate place of industrial substance between Albert and Bapaume. In prewar pictures I see more cows and sheep than factories.

I believe there was a car plant in Albert before the war. It then became an aerodrome at some time towards the end of the war and again in WW2 and more lately a museum. I must admit my facts are shaky.

However it is unquestionable that the cerebral power of this forum and its collective knowledge on the Great War is peerless.

I have to say I having a grudging admiration for this Yank. I mean he is alone (thankfully) and he has taken a lot on the chin. His resilience in the face of overwhelming odds (in brain cells alone) has to be humoured if only in deference to our sense of fair play.

Nevertheless it is frustrating when a view is made and then comprehensively refuted not receive an acknowledgement. Enfield remains convinced the world is flat. No logic, science, knowledge or any evidence to the contrary will sway him.

But Enfield - please hear this. You are condemning from afar. In calling their sacrifice a waste you deny that sacrifice and demean their deaths. Have your view if you must but do not spread the damage to these soldier's memories. Be still Enfield.

Please.

Thanks

Mods - make it happen

[Pete1052]

...punching a great hole into the German lines....

That's what an offensive action is supposed to accomplish. Once the penetration is made it needs to be broadened to the left and right. It's rare that a wide length of the enemy's line will suddenly collapse all at once. When a position is seized it needs to be rapidly consolidated to defend against the inevitable counterattack; there's no time for resting on one's laurels or milling about.

[Waffenlandser]

I believe there was a car plant in Albert before the war. It then became an aerodrome at some time towards the end of the war and again in WW2 and more lately a museum. I must admit my facts are shaky.

However it is unquestionable that the cerebral power of this forum and its collective knowledge on the Great War is peerless.

I have to say I having a grudging admiration for this Yank. I mean he is alone (thankfully) and he has taken a lot on the chin. His resilience in the face of overwhelming odds (in brain cells alone) has to be humoured if only in deference to our sense of fair play.

Nevertheless it is frustrating when a view is made and then comprehensively refuted not receive an acknowledgement. Enfield remains convinced the world is flat. No logic, science, knowledge or any evidence to the contrary will sway him.

But Enfield - please hear this. You are condemning from afar. In calling their sacrifice a waste you deny that sacrifice and demean their deaths. Have your view if you must but do not spread the damage to these soldier's memories. Be still Enfield.

Please.

Thanks

Mods - make it happen

Thank you for your input. So far there has not been one, 1, uno, real argument submitted by the overwhelming brain power of the forum to refute my arguments. The Rawly issue may be an exception, however.

There has been a lot of name calling and insinuation that I am somewhat mentally challenged. I'm okay with this. They said the same of Pasteur and Freud, so I guess I am in good company.

Gentlemen please enlighten this lowly sergeant with some really good rebuttals instead of pleading for the cutting room from the moderator.

Please help me change my mind and regard Haig as a brilliant hero instead of what I have so clearly stated before. I seek enlightenment from you. Not derision and insult.

In stating I have insulted the memory of our dead soldiers, you have touched a bare nerve. I have walked the Somme and seen the sacrifice. I do not deny the heroism and the sacrifice. By questioning the leadership, I do not sneer at those who suffered and died. It was a waste, but not in vain. The British army was never again going to repeat the mistakes of the Somme. The creeping barrage and more detailed intelligence was the result, but most important of all, the Enemy was no longer under estimated.

I do believe the world is indeed flat, but I wont be still. I am no naughty schoolboy to be admonished by prefects....or by Corporals.

I outrank you.......LOL

[Shaun Springer]

Shhhh.

[4thGordons]

.....but the lads of 1916 could not!

Evidence of this statement please.

(currently part of a discussion elsewhere - on ammo use etc)

[dutchbarge]

As a fellow American (who's been trounced plenty of times by Forum members for expressing a particularly American viewpoint) I'd really like to be able to back you up, but the facts just don't support your argument. Belonging to the Forum has really opened up my mind to the complexity of the Great War and how dangerous it is to cling to any idea too strongly. It is in the nature of Americans to want to get quickly to the bottom of things, wrap it up and stack it away neatly on the shelf. It is quite impossible to do this with the Great War. I have philosophical disagreements with much of the British viewpoint (hey, I'm not British) but have nothing but respect for their understanding of the nuts and bolts of things. Many of the opinions I aquired early on have been rudely upset since I joined the Forum. I've learned a great deal, especially when I get the wrong end of the stick and get sorted. Hard for the ego sometimes but very effective! Stick around and you can learn plenty. Cheers, Bill

[dutchbarge]

I agree. That Harry Enfield's funny...makes me laugh.

Sorry, not exactly appropos of this thread (not in anyway actually) but if I don't ask now I'll forget. Reading GAC's recco 'Farewell the Trumpets'. Are you any relation to that Ghandi Broomfield chap? Cheers, BIll

[dutchbarge]

apart from the endless litany of the dead, this forum's search for the truth is also somewhat lacking in depth.

Can't let this one pass. As often as I've butted heads with Forum members I must still vigorously disagree with this comment. Yes, there are some who are devoted solely to remembrance (which is a good thing, yes?) but there are many more who are really quite brilliant in their knowledge of the Great War and always willing to share that knowledge. I too am vey frustrated at times with the whole idea of the war, and want to find someone to blame, but those feelings are informed by my own personal experiences of a war which took place two generations later. I'm learning that it is not possible (at least for me) to understand WW1 with an American baby boomer compass. Hopefully I won't sound condescending or pompous when I say that it takes lots of reading to get the feel of the thing. Don't know that having grown up in America I ever will. But if I don't it certainly won't be the fault of the Forum. Cheers, Bill

[Paul Hederer]

You take the credit for most things

No Steve, we USE credit for most things-see the news for the results.

Paul

[Waffenlandser]

Unlike you Dutch, I am a mix of being born and raised in an almost Victorian upbringing by British born parents and family deeply affected by the Great War as well as the Second World war when family went off to fight for King and Country. The mix is further compounded by an American philosophical outlook and over 50 years of American citizenship. My personal contribution to freedom's cause has not been small.

The intent of this thread was not to insult the dead or belittle the vast knowlege of forum members, but to stimulate a debate where I could learn from others.

I question the leadership of the Generals and not the sacrifice or courage of the British fighting man.

In contradiction to the opinions of the forum that states I am some kind of revisionist or Nazi or demented Yank, I quote the words of a recent BRITISH documentary on the History Channel.

Popular history condemns Douglas Haig alone for the failure of the offensive. Even with the benefit of hindsight, Douglas Haig's failed tactics and lack of confidence in his unseasoned troops, is impossible to excuse. The same blame is laid squarely on the shoulders of his other generals. General Rawlinson was responsible for some of the most disasterous attacks. It was he who demanded the British walk slowly and not in rushes. He did not think the British soldier had the ability to go fast.He and Haig disliked each other and were opposed to each other's tactics. The Somme was a tactical failure. The general who would have conducted the battle differently had not yet been born

The unsuspecting Tommies were doomed by these leaders.

The Somme was doomed before it started. Six German divisions against 18 British divisions. The Somme is cursed by unpredictable weather and bitter cold and searing heat. Torrential downpours turned the chalky clay into sticky mud that swallowed everything and made living conditions hellish for the troops.The Germans held the high ground and had commanding views of the British trenches. They could look right into the British trenches. It was all uphill for the troops. Another factor that doomed the Somme was the inadequacy of the artillery. Most of the shells were 18 pounders. Harmless against the wire and the deep dugouts. The shells were also of poor quality as skilled iron smiths were all at the front. About 20% were estimated to be duds. The white smoke screen laid down by the British confused the troops and also gave the German machinegunners a perfect background to mke every Tommy a bulls eye.

The final nail in the coffins of the troops was that the venerable RAMC and casualty clearing stations were unprepared for the avalnche of wounded. The system was overwhelmed as described so well by Lynn MacDonald and Vera Britain. The mud of the Somme was a veritable culture medium for Tetanus, Gangrene and enterococci that produced gas gangrene in even the smallest wound. Men lay out in the open with wounds and died days later of blood loss and infection. There were just not enough ambulances and stretcher bearers. Both the front and the home hospitals were simply overwhelmed by the enormity of the day's casualties. Once admitted to London major hospitals, despite the magnificent standard of British surgery, there were not enough trauma surgeons to deal with the flood. Most were at the front. The VADs were totally out of their ability to suddenly be Sisters and Staff Nurses, experienced in trauma.. These were all at the front.

So. Lets summarise things. Sixty thousand casualties. Twenty thousand dead. Hardly any land gained. And this is in the first 8 hours of day one. Much more to come till the battle finally dies sometime in the winter.

I am the revisionist and the stupid Yank.

I'd really like to be able to back you up, but the facts just don't support your argument. No logic, science, knowledge or any evidence to the contrary will sway him.

want to change your mind Dutch?

still waiting for the logic and science Shaun Springer.

Just one final addition here. The Somme was not Haigs first failure.

On October 13th 1915 Haig had flung the 46th Division at the German strongpoint of the Hohenzollern Redoubt during the Battle of Loos. Given no time to prepare, without adequate artillery support and with a gas attack that did more damage to the British than Germans the men of the 46th Division were slaughtered in their hundreds. It was the Division's worst day of the entire war. Stuart Wortley never forgave Haig for the destruction of his Division and Haig, typically, blamed the General and his dead troops for his own failings.

There were others besides Haig who were criticised.

Major General Montagu-Stuart-Wortley suffered the ignominy of being the only commander to be sacked after 1st July 1916 and the 46th Division's performance was the only investigated by a Court of Inquiry. Back home he was given command of the 65th Division in Ireland giving up command in March 1918 and being unemployed until he retired in July 1919. He was described before the battle as being a worn out old man and one of the most informed historians of the 46th Division Col J F C Fuller, then attached to the 37th Division, described the 46th Division's command and staff work as:

"absolutely shocking"

[Steven Broomfield]

Are you any relation to that Ghandi Broomfield chap? Cheers, BIll

Sadly not. I'm from the Hampshire Broomfields

Enfield: it seems to me that your analysis of the Great War (British and Empire involvement in) concentrates on one thing only: the Somme. And there's your problem - I guess it would be like studying the history of banking, but only using the period of mid-2008 as your reference point.

The Great War went on for much longer than that, and any unbiased study of it would lead to the conclusion that tactics, training, ability, strategy - everything - changed. By concentrating on what was, admittedly, a disaster you have fallen into the trap of seeing nothing change.

There are many far cleverer people than me on the Forum who can give more detail, but perhaps you should look at the 1915 battles (Neuve Chapelle, for example) through to the 1918 battles (Amiens, perhaps) to see that the British generals and the British soldiers (and I include the Empire in this) studied, observed and, above all, learned from what went wrong.

I agree you're not a troll, but in order to argue you need to study other than your current area of expertise. As your fellow-countryman, Dutchbarge, says, the Forum is a good place to read and learn. Use it like that.

[Moston]

Enfield.

Trying a different tack rather than jumping down your throat for the comments you have made....

It's very common to judge the whole offensive of the Somme (4 months) by just the first day.

The first day is the worst day in British Military history - that's fact.

Can we blame Haig exclusively for that day. NO. Here's why I don't...

1) He didn't want an offensive on the Somme - he preferred to attack at Ypes on familiar ground and push for the channel ports - an achievable objective with tangible results.

His hand was forced by the French & British Gov'ts etc that the British needed to 'up the anti' a bit and take on a larger responsibility of the front line.

It was also decided (by others) that it was to be an Anglo-French joint offensive - thus it was to take place where the 2 armies were side by side...the Somme.

2) He was promised umpteen French Divisions and a huge amount of their heavy artillery (British 'heavy' artillery hadn't been produced in sufficient numbers at this time - preferring the lighter more mobile Field Artillery..this too wasn't Haig's error).

3) He didn't want to fight the Somme in July. He wanted more time for the new 'Civilian Army' to get accustomed to the Western Front and battlefield tactics.

4) Verdun began in Feb 1916.

5) 'Urgency' kicked in.

6) IF the pressure at Verdun was not relieved and QUICK then there was a very real possibility that the French army could easily be defeated and effectively knocked out of the war.

7) With the French defeated - it would have been easier for the Germans to devote their resources against the British (remember the Russian's were decidedly 'wobbly' at this time...pre revolution in 1917). The British army could never have filled the void left by the French and as such their right flank would have been 'in the air' OR they would have had to bend it back to the coast effectiveky creating a salient - we would have lost the war.

8) Somme start date brought forward to June -eventually 1st July (weather).

9) Haig was given a tiny fraction of the French resources he was promised - with only sufficient heavy artillery to be used adjacent to the French at Maricourt.

10) Facts re Somme so far . Haig was fighting on ground he wouldn't have chosen, at a time he didn't want with 1,000's of less men that he was told he would have without sufficient heavy artillery.

11)1916 was not a time of excellent aerial reconisance - field telephones were poor and 'intelligence' was in it's infancy.

12) THe Germans had been in the Somme sector since 1914/15 - they had pulled back to take full advantage of the contours of the land and had 'dug-in'

13) No-one knew how deep they had dug in...please remember this...this is KEY to understanding 1st July.

14) Haig now had to plan for the battle - with predominantly a civilian army. There is little value in untried troops running at different speeds and ending up in the German 1st trench in dribs & drabs. To resolve this..IN SOME SECTORS ONLY (not all !) they were encouraged to walk in a line so that they'd reach the 1st line together. Add to this the heavy kit they were carrying. The 5 day bombardment was key in the plan to destroy enough Germans/trenches etc to give our boys a chance, often attacking uphill. (Not Haigs choice remember)

15) Heavy kit...purely because it was thought that the artillery would destroy or stupify the Germans so much our first wave could occupy and consolidate the German 1st line (transfer the parados to the parapet in preparation for a counter attack). In order to do this quickly that carried the equipment needed...which was heavy.

30% of our shells were duds - that's a lot -not Haig's fault.

16) 1st July - total failure? - yes it was north of the Albert to Bapaume Road...to the South? - no ! - the plan of attack worked as Haig had wished..why? support from the French Artillery HAD destroyed the deep German dug-outs. It still wasn't the 'walk-over' hoped for but serious ground was gained.

Early historians stop here..they ignore the rest of the battle as the losses of 1st July are too huge an issue to see past.

Did Haig shrug his shoulders and keep using the same tactics as you suggest?

11th July - Mametz - creeping barrage used effectively for the first time to help the Welsh capture Mametz Wood.

14th July - note just 13 days after the opening shots - we have the Battle of Bazentin Ridge on the Somme - I recommend you read more about this one. Lightening bombardment - our troops had crawled at night right up to the German 1st line BEFORE our barrage began - our barrage caused the Germans to rush down to their bunkers...our troops jump into their trenches and hurl grenades down the bunkers - job done a vast amount of enemy territory taken in a very short period of time.

Results of Somme? = Pressure taken off Verdun as Germans rush troops to Somme to prevent breakthrough. France stays in the war. Somme became the graveyard of the German army (often overlooked).

Lesson's learnt? = Yes.

Was 1st July ALL Haigs fault? = No

Is my rambling 100% accurate - probably not as I'm writing this off the top of my head having read a lot over the years.

Will I have convinved you Haig was not the butcher you think? = probably not

But I hope at the very least you'll understand that the more you read - the sooner you realise it's impossible to apportion blame to just the generals - especially if you remove our hindsight and think with the information they had at the time.

As an aside....when the Yanks joined the war, they arrived with no tin-hats and their own idea on how to do things...which was pretty much how the Brits did things pre 1/7/16. Haig etal tried to explain the new way of doing things - they didn't want to hear...they did after their first battle!.

[Waffenlandser]

Thank you for a well balanced and name calling free response. Haig agreed to the Somme and thats the bottom line. Once he agreed to pressure from Joffre and others, he took responsibility for the debacle. The Somme was to be a joint French British offensive to tale the pressure off the Verdun charnel house and so the Somme was an alternate charnel house with British blood instead of French blood staining the ground.

My issue is not the First day of the Somme. Its the first eight hours. Yes. Lessons were learned, but at what a cost.

The five day bombardment???? Whose choice was it then? Haig was the Cin C. He could have vetoed it at any time.

Was it all Haigs fault? No. but he had to take full responsibility for the blundering that caused 20,000 dead on that fateful day in July 1916.

Now I can rest and let this thread slowly be buried and forgotten.

Thank you and cheers. I can now go back to my true passion. Restoring and shooting WW1 Lee Enfields.

Sarge

[Andrew Hesketh]

Now I can rest and let this thread slowly be buried and forgotten.

Enfield - Compared to many threads that mention Ha*g this has been quite a good one and I commend you for your tenacity, but if you want it closed let me or another Mod know and we'll give it the last rites.

[Waffenlandser]

Enfield - Compared to many threads that mention Ha*g this has been quite a good one and I commend you for your tenacity, but if you want it closed let me or another Mod know and we'll give it the last rites.

Thanks Mod. If you dont mind let it stay and have a decent burial as it is covered by other more popular threads in line with the thoughts and philosophies of the forum higher echelons.

I continue with my search on what really happened at the Somme, Omaha beach,Pearl Harbor and Arnhem

[T8HANTS]

I continue with my search on what really happened at the Somme, Omaha beach,Pearl Harbor and Arnhem

T'is quite simple the learning curve is drawn with the blood of the soldiers involved. Pickett,s charge, battle of the crater, and Grants wilderness campaign spring to mind. Making as has been argued the rifled musket the most devastating infantry weapon ever, or the tactics used against it, the least modified.

[per ardua per mare per terram]

In my post #35 I quoted the section of your comments that I was addressing including “South Africans were not so directly affected by a war 5000 miles away.” At that time I didn’t realise that your focus is so narrow and that you want to ignore all other aspects of South Africa’s involvement in WWI. Or that you weren’t interested in the proximity of the German threat; you appeared not to have heard of the revolt against South Africa fighting in the war I thought I’d mention it. The SA contributions on the Western Front have been well covered, and I specifically mentioned 1914 & 1915 rather than 16. Again I apologise for assuming that you had a greater interest than 8 hours on 1/7/16 (does this mean that you’re not interested in the Battle for Delville Wood on 115/7/16?). As this is a Great War forum I didn’t reference Tobruk, or the other SA involvement in that war such as in Somaliland. Btw why do you think that I’ve neither been to Tobruk nor Delville Wood?

The lack of industrial complexes on the Somme is irrelevant; as you have repeatedly failed to acknowledge, the reason that the British Imperial troops were fighting in Ypres or on the Somme was because the Germans had invaded France, via Belgium, in an attempt to capture Paris, they were repulsed and retreated to the positions that the subsequent fighting attempted to dislodge them from.

I agree with you that the British positions were abysmal and I think that ranks high on the list of British failures of the war. Any commanders that had been through the Boer War should have learnt the lesson of Spion Kop: DON’T LET YOUR ENEMY FIGHT FROM HIGHER GROUND THAN YOU!

Edited 10 October , 2008 by per ardua per mare per terram

[Waffenlandser]

In my post #35 I quoted the section of your comments that I was addressing including “South Africans were not so directly affected by a war 5000 miles away.” At that time I didn’t realise that your focus is so narrow and that you want to ignore all other aspects of South Africa’s involvement in WWI. Or that you weren’t interested in the proximity of the German threat; you appeared not to have heard of the revolt against South Africa fighting in the war I thought I’d mention it. The SA contributions on the Western Front have been well covered, and I specifically mentioned 1914 & 1915 rather than 16. Again I apologise for assuming that you had a greater interest than 8 hours on 1/7/16 (does this mean that you’re not interest in the Battle for Delville Wood on 115/7/16?). As this is a Great War forum I didn’t reference Tobruk, or the other SA involvement in that war such as in Somaliland. Btw why do you think that I’ve neither been to Tobruk nor Delville Wood?

!

My late Grandfather was severely injured at Delville wood. He eventually died of his injuries.

I therefore have more than just a passing interest in that area of the Somme castatrophe.

As to where you have or have not been is beyond the scope of this debate and I am not overly motivated to delve into this issue.

Thanks

[Waffenlandser]

The purpose of this reply is not to bump this thread. As far as I am concerned, the Mods or Forum admin can trash it after a day or two.

Since the last post in October, I have gone back to again re read most of the classics on the Somme, including one of the latest , Somme by Martin Gilbert written in 2000. As we all know, Gilbert was knighted in 1995 for services to British History. Gilbert certainly does not paint the rosy pictures of well fed and rested British troops as described by Gordon Corrigan in his attempt to defend Haig's blunderings on July1,1916.

Now to the main subject of this reply. I have been chastised by the Old Sweats of this forum by not being "Scientific" and also of being some kind of anti revisionist skin head. "Mud, Blood and Poppycock" by Corrigan has been thrown on the floor as the literary gauntlet. Well I have picked up the iron gauntlet and read it word by word, sentence by sentence. Corrigan's statistics unless subjected to strict statistical analysies must be regarded as anecdotal and flawed. He says the casualties at Normandy were worse than the Somme and quotes a day's dead at a small French town of 300 as comparison to the 20,0000 dead on the first day of the Somme. He does not compare casualties to miles advanced or to prisoners and materiel taken. He forgets to mention Normandy was a mobile and active front and advances a day was measured in miles and not inches. The troops at Normandy did not stagger back to the beaches on the first day as the Tommies did to their trenches on the eve of July 1. Normandy was the first nail in the coffin of Nazi Germany. By D day plus One all the main objectives had been siezed and the beachhead was breached.Corrigan defends Haig at all costs. He blames the French, the politicians, the weather, the terrain the American shells, the training of the New Army, Kitchener, but never the man who had to bear the ultimate responsibility of the terrible butcher's bill of that day. Earl Douglas Haig.

Corrigan blames the poets and the writers of that time. He brands Blunden, Sasoon, Owen and Graves as some kind of early hippies having a go at the aristocracy and the politicians of the time. Corrigan advocates that the lower class journalists were taking a cheap shot at the upper class officer ranks simply to follow the Shakesperian motto of "what the greater do, the less will prattle of" Siegfied Sasoon's writings are deemed the rantings of a sick mind by Corrigan, who, having been in the front line trenches of 1916 in spirit only, can be believed by non revisionists. Corrigan never mentions "Regeneration" in his critique. Its interesting to notice that Corrigan was an officer and a professional soldier. His wife was also an officer in the British army. One can appreciate his defending the officer class of 1916.

The main thread of Corrigan's defence of Haig is that he was forced by the French and British politicians to start the offensive on the Somme. Yes, indeed, the French had to be relieved at Verdun, but Haig's ultimate responsibility was the lives and welfare of HIS men. He knew the terrain was hostile. He knew the Germans had been preparing defences for months. He knew the route of advance for his men was up hill. He knew his army was poorly trained and short of experienced officers and NCOs. It was HIS final decision to send his troops into the slaughter, and slaughter it was no matter how Corrigan manipulates his numbers. It were the British staff officers who cast a Nelsonian eye to the uncut wire. They are to blame as Tommies were shepherded into gaps already ranged in by the German machine gunners.

Corrigan defends the Pals battalions as nothing out of the ordinary. He felt the comeraderie helped to boost morale and fighting prowess. If this is so, why has the British army stopped putting men from the same area together ever since WW1? He seems to disregard the writings of MacDonald and Britain who describe entire streets with shades drawn and grieving crowds. The majority of this attempt to defend the blunderers and executioners of July 1 1916 is spent describing the political intricacies and the machinations of the lumbering giants of early European armies and their intrigues and back stabbing with the politicians of that time. There is little in this book to excuse the tragedy of July 1 1916. According to Corrigan life in the trenches was quite cozy with lots of hot food and all kinds of entertainment laid on for our boys. Nothing compared to the reminiscences of the generation now gone forever who talk of the hell and suffering they personaly experienced. My late grandfather must have been high on something when, in the few moments he shared his memories, he told of eating nothing but weevil infested biscuits and drinking petrol tainted water for days on end with rotting corpses half buried in the mud around him and giant rats eating his dead friends. This all while the generals ate five course dinners with champagne in their chateaux behind the lines.

Indeed, a couple of million dead young men may not be a lost generation to Mr Corrigan, but it certainly is to the young sweet hearts, wives and mothers of 1914-1918. Twenty thousand dead in one day is no big deal to Mr Corrigan. Its all in the game of war. To give credibility to these dead, its is said by a literary reviewer of the Dail Mail, that "They were less than France and Germany" This so called Libretarian, still has no illusions about the debacle of July1, 1916 despite the one and only book written to help take the blame off the Generals of that time. This book only confirms my beliefs as to the ineptitude and bungling that cost so many, many young lives.

Well how do you do, Private William Mcbride.

Do you mind if I sit down here by your grave side?

I'll rest for a while in the warm summer sun

I've been walking all day, and I'm really done.

And I see by your gravestone, you were only nineteen

when you joined the glorious fallen in 1916

And I hope you died quick, and I hope you died clean

Or, Willie Mcbride, was it slow and obscene.

But here in this graveyard, it's still No Man's land

The countless white crosses in mute witness stand

To mans blind indifference to his fellow man

And the whole generation who were butchered and damned.

And I cant help but wonder now, Willie Mcbride

Do all those who lie here know why they died?

Did you really believe them when they told you "The Cause"

Did you really believe this war would end wars?

Well the suffering, the sorrow,the glory the shame,

the killing the dying, it was all done in vain

For Willie Mcbride it all happened again

and again and again and again.

Eric Bogle.

Private William Mcbride. Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers.

Authuille Military Cemetery.

KIA Thiepval. 1916.

Rest in peace.

[Steven Broomfield]

Normandy was the first nail in the coffin of Nazi Germany.

As opposed to, say the Battle of Britain, Kursk, Stalingrad, El Alamein........

[Steven Broomfield]

Normandy was a mobile and active front and advances a day was measured in miles and not inches. The troops at Normandy did not stagger back to the beaches on the first day as the Tommies did to their trenches on the eve of July 1.

The first comment is plain wrong. Normandy (particularly in the British/Canadian sector) was a bitter, bloody slogging match from the Landings until the break-out in mid-August. It is true that the Allies didn't stagger back to the beaches on 6th June, but then again, in some sectors of the Somme (especially the south), neither did the Tommies all stagger back to their trenches.

[Steven Broomfield]

As for Corrigan's book, I haven't read it, so can't comment. I am, however, surprised to see him quoted in such terms, when his book on the Indians in France (Sepoys in the Trenches) seemed quite clear on how the Indians suffered.

[Waffenlandser]

in some sectors of the Somme (especially the south), neither did the Tommies all stagger back to their trenches

perhaps not on the first day, but eventualy they did.

It was the French who wanted the Somme to be a means for pressure to be taken off Verdun. It was Haigs plan to achieve a breakout and breach the German defences and allow the cavalry to breakout and lead the way into open ground. He failed miserably and the cavalry spent most of the time behind the British lines doing nothing.

The Ulster division made good advance, but once they achieved their objectives, there were no reserves to reinforce them and they were left out in the open and were decimated by German counterattacks. July 1 is still a day of mourning in Ulster.

In his book on the Sepoys he was not the only writer who described the hell the Indian soldier went through on the Western Front. In Mud Blood etc he was too busy defending the officer class of 1916 and not the suffering of the ordinary Brtish soldier.

To sum up the disaster of July1, 1916, I quote the stark memorial plaque at the entrance to Newfoundland Park Memorial where I have stood for many an hour trying to imagine the carnage of that day.

Strategic and tactical miscalculations led to a terrible slaughter

[Chris_Baker]

...It was the French who wanted the Somme to be a means for pressure to be taken off Verdun ...

The battle was conceived before the German attacked at Verdun.

...In the south the Ulster division made good advance...

North. In the south the 30th, 18th and 7th Divisions achieved their objectives, the latter partially.

[Waffenlandser]

The battle was conceived before the German attacked at Verdun.

If you read the proceedings of the Chantilly conference, its as plain as daylight that the French wanted the Somme to be an escape valve for the French army being bled white at Verdun. When the Germans attacked was besides the question. It was also Joffre who demanded the attack on July 1 be undertaken in broad day light and not at dawn with the sun behind the German lines. Again Haig gave in and the troops were sitting ducks for the German machine gunners.