waffenlandser

[Chris_Baker]

Falkenhayn, in his "General Headquarters 1914-1916 and its critical decisions" says that he communicated his thoughts about an offensive at Verdun to the Kaiser, at Christmas 1915. He goes on to say that preparations for operations started in earnest after this, once the plan was made known to the commands concerned.

The Chantilly Conference took place on 6 December 1915. I am rather surprised at your assertion that the French knew all about it, three weeks before the Kaiser or any of Falkenhayn's subordinates did. What evidence do you have for that?

Let's also examine "Haig gave in". Given his instructions from the British government concerning the relationship to be adopted vis-a-vis the French, what alternative course of action would you propose? This is a question of the balance of power in Franco-British coalition warfare. In my view it was politically totally unthinkable to have done anything else.

[Waffenlandser]

In my view it was politically totally unthinkable to have done anything else.

This is the entire focus of this thread. Politics were more important than the lives of 20,000 British dead on July 1, 1916. It was the absence of political interference that was a major factor in winning WW2. If Haig was so influenced by the French politicians, he should have just resigned and left the fighting to soldiers instead of lackeys, licking the polished boots of Joffre and Pointcarre.

[Chris_Baker]

Haig was under orders of the British government to co-operate with the French. The British government gave approval to the Chantilly plan. Perhaps if he did not agree with the French insistence on an offensive on the Somme, Haig should have resigned. But then what? Do you think that the French would change their mind and go onto a passive defensive, to save lives, because a British General disagrees with them? Not a chance. The die was cast.

And, yes, the politics of winning the war was definitely a greater consideration than casualties.

Please explain how leaving the fighting to soldiers, by which I presume you mean the rank and file, would have defeated Germany. Please explain how the army would have functioned. Or do you actually mean leave the fighting to be commanded by a different General. Then who?

PS. My interest in your assertion that the French knew about Verdun before anyone but Falkenhayn remains unabated.

[Steven Broomfield]

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

What?

If I assume you mean in 1918, then maybe you could use that analogy, but that was a rather different set of circumstances (and two years' gap). Your original comments seem to indicate you meant they 'staggered back' to their trenches on 1st July.

[Steven Broomfield]

It was the absence of political interference that was a major factor in winning WW2.

I give you credit - you really do come out with them.

Were the various conferences held between the Allies - Roosevelt/Trueman, Churchill, Stalin, etc - nothing to do with winning the war?

You might suggest that the generals were better able to deal with the political interference, or even that the politicians (many of them ex-soldiers from the GW) were better able to direct their political interference more usefully, but even a vague skimming of the diaries of someone such as Alanbrooke would lead one to surmise you're plain wrong there.

[truthergw]

This is the entire focus of this thread. Politics were more important than the lives of 20,000 British dead on July 1, 1916. It was the absence of political interference that was a major factor in winning WW2. If Haig was so influenced by the French politicians, he should have just resigned and left the fighting to soldiers instead of lackeys, licking the polished boots of Joffre and Pointcarre.

In a democracy, politics decide when war is waged and by whom and against whom. That is the whole point of a democracy and one of the reasons the Germans lost. They had soldiers in charge and the Allies had their democratically elected governments in charge. The politicians declared war appointed and removed generals and dictated the terms of the armistice. You seem to think that the Armed Services were in charge. You ought to read a few books on the political aspects of making war. I quote, " War is much too important to be left to the Generals".

[Waffenlandser]

Churchill was a fighting leader. He was First Lord of the Admiralty. He was a seasoned soldier. Stalin was the commander in chief of his armed forces as was Roosevelt. They all gave their generals lee way for individualism and free thinking and planning. Unfortunately in Viet Nam the US politicians interfered and we all saw the results of that. In Iraq and Afganistan its once again in the hands of the generals.

The Chantilly conference was all about taking pressure off the French and NOT about thwarting a German offensive. The Somme took the pressure off the French but did not prevent the mutiny of the French army in 1917/1918.

" War is much too important to be left to the Generals".

yes indeed. Tell that to the soldiers whom served under Montgomery and Patton.

[Chris_Baker]

Churchill ... gave their generals lee way for individualism and free thinking and planning.

Utter rubbish. Read Alanbrooke's diaries.

The Chantilly conference was all about taking pressure off the French.

Utter rubbish. Read the minutes.

[Waffenlandser]

Utter rubbish. Read Alanbrooke's diaries.

Utter rubbish. Read the minutes.

While we are talking about politicians and generals viz a viz the Chantilly confrence, lets not forget that Lord Balfour, First Lord of the Amiralty and a former prime minister, was convinced that a frontal attack on the Western Front would "almost certainly fail" and that "The British forces have no sufficient reply to the obstacles provided by sucessive lines of trenches, the unlimited use of barbed wire and the machine guns of the Germans"

For saying this, Balfour was chastised by Lord Kitchener. Similar views were expressed by other politicians such as Lloyd George and chancelor of the exchequer Reginald McKenna. Lloyd George brought the past failures of Haig in Flanders to the attention of the war commitee, but was ignored.

There is no doubt that Kitchener, was the fire that fuelled the Somme, but had the affront to say to General Robertson, CIGS, that he had his work cut out for him by the politicians. He was convinced an offensive on the WF would "bring peace by force of arms"

Its a pity he was not around to witness this peace by force of arms.

There is utter rubbish and then there is the truth.

History, not you and I will decide which.

[Chris_Baker]

You are a comedian.

[Waffenlandser]

You are a comedian.

read my edited reply to you.

I dont think anything on the Somme is worthy of comedy.

I dont joke about 20,0000 dead young men.

[Guest geoff501]

Well how do you do, Private William Mcbride.......

.......Eric Bogle.

Private William Mcbride. Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers.

Authuille Military Cemetery.

KIA Thiepval. 1916.

Even this is made up. No proof it was him.

[Waffenlandser]

Even this is made up. No proof it was him.

What proof do you need???

and pray expand on whats"made up".

The usual answer when there is no answer.

[Steven Broomfield]

I must say I'm taken by the idea that Stalin gave his generals lee way for free thinking and individualism.

That would be the ones he didn't have executed.

[Waffenlandser]

I must say I'm taken by the idea that Stalin gave his generals lee way for free thinking and individualism.

That would be the ones he didn't have executed.

Stalin learned the hard way. He finally gave Zhukov and Rokosovsky the independence they needed to break out of Stalingrad and clear Eastern Europe of the Nazis. After the officer purges of the 30's he learned his lesson. Stalin, however distasteful to many, was a Marshall of the Soviet army.

I do believe we are going off topic now. Lets keep it to Haig and the Somme please.

[per ardua per mare per terram]

It was the absence of political interference that was a major factor in winning WW2.

This is total bunkum! You are right Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty and pre WWI had contributed greatly and in certain respects and again did so after outbreak of war recognising the importance of aircraft, tanks and armoured cars. All of which is rather over shadowed by his disastrous plans for the Dardanelles and in particular persisting with them after trying to force the Straights. His time in WW2 as First Lord was not marred by successes that were of his doing. As for his not interfering in WW2, do you know how many generals he dismissed or how often he interfered in war plans? For example, with his switching around forces in the Mediterranean and his demands to attack the so called 'soft belly of Europe' demands that weakened the offensives in the region.

You brought up Normandy: that was a classic case of some of the generals not learning from experience. The Americans decided to go into action without Hobart’s 'Funnies' or any equivalent and the result was the casualties on Omaha Beach. In contrast the WWI generals had precious little experience of the type of warfare that they had become involved in.

[Waffenlandser]

I am taking a chance here of going too off topic, but have to reply.

Hobarts funnies really contributed little to the success of Sword and Juno beaches. They were lightly defended and beach obstacles were few.

Omaha beach was again the result of poor intelligence and planning. The troope were sea sick from being in the landing craft for too long. The German bunkers were hardly touched by the bombardment and the machine gun nests were waiting for the troops....Ring a bell anybody??????

Despite all this, thanks for the individual officers taking matters into their own hands, the stalemate was rapidly overcome and the troops outflanked the bunkers and took them from behind. This is what should have but did not happen on July1, 1916.

Oh BTW. Itwas the American armourers who fitted the Shermans with hedge cutters that facilitated the breakout from the Bocage.

The disaster at Gallipoli cannot be put on Churchill's shoulders. TThere were too many other blunderers there to share the honour.

In contrast the WWI generals had precious little experience of the type of warfare that they had become involved in.

ahhh so First and Second Ypres were not trench battles???

The storming of the Hohenzollern redoubt was not similar to the Somme????

I do indeed have a lot to learn.

[Pete1052]

President Franklin Roosevelt vetoed Gen. George Marshall's plan for making a cross-Channel invasion in 1942 and 1943 and the landings in Africa and Italy took place instead.

[Waffenlandser]

President Franklin Roosevelt vetoed Gen. George Marshall's plan for making a cross-Channel invasion in 1942 and 1943 and the landings in Africa and Italy took place instead.

Roosevelt as President of the United States is also commander in chief of her army. He has the right to veto the decisions of those junior to him.

The Italian campaign drew many German divisions away from Normandy.

Also, and please correct me if I'm wrong, did not the Chantilly conference also advocate a three prong strike, one being from Italy???

A cross channel invasion in 1943 would have been another Dieppe. Unlike the first day of the Somme, the Allies quickly learned from their mistakes.

[59165]

Itwas the American armourers who fitted the Shermans with hedge cutters that facilitated the breakout from the Bocage.

The armourers that fitted the hedge cutters named the attatchments after Bocage à Queant,

known also as B&Q

[Guest geoff501]

I am taking a chance here of going too off topic, but have to reply.

Mods usually stepped in by now.

Incidentally, the fragmented quote, it's Berni Taupin, not Elton John.

[Steven Broomfield]

The Italian campaign drew many German divisions away from Normandy.

Probably not as many German as British, South African, French, Canadian, American, Indian, Brazilian, New Zealand, Polish....

If you look (as a rough and ready guide) at Matthew Parker's Monte Cassino (Appendix Two), you will see Orders of Battle.

13 German Divisions seem to be listed in total; 23 Allied Divisions or division equivalents are listed.

I have to give you credit, though. You get just about every fact wrong, but you keep on coming. You remind me of the 'bad' knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. No legs, no arms.......but you keep on at it.

[per ardua per mare per terram]

The disaster at Gallipoli cannot be put on Churchill's shoulders. TThere were too many other blunderers there to share the honour.

I didn't mention Gallipoli, he and Fisher were the genius' behind the Dardanelles campaign (there is a difference) and resigned as a result if they had no responsibility they wouldn't have resigned.

ahhh so First and Second Ypres were not trench battles??? The storming of the Hohenzollern redoubt was not similar to the Somme????

I said precious little experience, I didn't say none. None of the examples you quote were on the scale of the Somme; there was a belief that the greater numbers might make a difference.

The German bunkers were hardly touched by the bombardment and the machine gun nests were waiting for the troops That's just what some of Hobart’s funnies were designed for, so it might have been a good idea to have them along! There was plenty of experience for the American generals to draw on by then.

The Italian campaign, Yugoslavia, South France, just some of the distractions Churchill dreamt up as he tried again to show that he was a strategic genius to rival his illustrious ancestor.

I do indeed have a lot to learn. It's always useful to remember that.

[Waffenlandser]

You never answered my comments on your second quote. The tanks that were off loaded at Omaha beach sank in water too deep for them. The flotation collars were a total failure. The same went for the tanks on the Somme. They got mired down in the mud and easily destroyed by German gunners.

Unfortunately on the Somme, tanks were used as battering rams, as were the infantry. Never as encircling weapons to get into open country. This was reseved for the poor horses and their hapless riders. I believe the British lost about 250,000 horses in WW1.

[Kate Wills]

In response to calls to close this thread, may I repeat that all views are welcome, provided they are placed in a spirit of friendly debate.