The Somme and Normandy compared

[phil andrade]

Dave,

These casualties that we discusss....it's the "historiography" that they entail, rather than the numbers themselves, that intrigues me.

Earlier on I mentioned my suspicion that British people have a "proprietal" sense about their casualties on the Somme, in so far as they might fixate on this battle to an extent that blinds them to the losses suffered by other people on other battlefields.

I have noticed this when Americans comment on their Civil War - they attribute to it an exaggerated bloodiness. This is not to say that that war was not a bloodbath - it certainly was - but not to the extent that it eclipsed the Napoleonic battles, as some Americans will insist it did.

If this syndrome is apparent in perceptions of the Somme , then Gordon Corrigan has done much to counter it, but in his enthusiasm to dispel a myth he has gone too far the other way. Forgive me if I'm going round in circles here.

Phil (PJA)

[phil andrade]

This has got me thinking quite profoundly about the historiography, and the "spin" that has been put on the statistics.

Talking about myself a bit , hope it's not bad mamnners....

In the mid 1960s, when I was at school, Graves and Sassoon were compulsory reading in the run up to English Literature O Level.

I remember our English teacher telling us " Remember, this war was very different from the last one....this time round we had mobility and light casualties...."

A glance at virtually all the war memorials had to bear him out....plain as a pikestaff...three or four times as many names from 1914-18 as from 1939-45. This was endorsed at home : my dad, who had served as a gunner at El Alamein and was transferred to the infantry in Italy, used to watch the Great War documentary and blurt out " Thank God I wasn't in THAT one !"

It was explained, or at least implied, that the generation of 1914-1918 had been wrecked by Haig and other callous and incompetent upper class twits, and that the 1939-45 episode had been redeemed by enlightened generalship.

The maverick politician Enoch Powell - who was about to make his "Rivers of Blood" speech - was to make a pronouncement in a forward to a book about the Great War in which he stated that those who had served with him in WWII were afflicted with a sense that their ordeal was not to be compared with that endured by the men of 1914-18....echoing what Dad had said.

This was at a time of great cultural and social upheaval, which amplified perceptions of the Great War during these fiftieth anniversary years. There was a peculiar British reaction, which perhaps testified to the sense we had that we were being marginalised in the world, and the Great War held a potent message.

Into this welter of caricature stepped the person of our historiographical hero , John Terraine. He had been writing for a few years already, and he was determined to revise our perceptions of the Great War. The Somme must be seen as a continuation of what had already been demonstrated at Waterloo and Antietam, and was to be even more catastrophically apparent in the war on the Eastern Front 1941-45.

In so doing, he indulged in a little bit of statistical sleight of hand himself. The American Civil War, he wrote, had ended with a million dead. It did not ...620,000 was probably the correct figure, of whom one third had been killed in battle. The Great War itself was dwarfed by the losses of the Soviet Union which, he stated, had lost 13,600,000 military dead in WWII. Another exaggeration here...8,668,000 military personnel had been killed or died from all causes, as revealed by the opening of Soviet archives. If I remember correctly, he also wrote in his White Heat that German losses in the first six months after Barbarossa put the figures of the Great War "in the shade", since 775,000 German casualties were reported compared with 337,000 for ten months at Verdun in 1916. That's hardly a valid comparison is it ? Taking losses for a front a thousand miles long, and comparing them with casualties incurred in one battle on a front of fifteen miles. If he had taken German losses for the Western Front as a whole in the second half of 1916, or in the period of March to June 1918, then his argument would have been compromised to say the least. Another case of spin, I'm afraid.

This tendency to make incorrect or msisleading claims about casualty statistcs was demonstrated again by Rodric Braithwaite's insistence that Russian military deaths in the battles for Moscow exceeded the total lost by Britain in the Great War. These statements gain wide credence and are repeated, and the effect is compounded.

And so Corrigan's spin on the need to debunk the myths of the Great War must be challenged when it comes to his comparison of the Somme with Normandy. If statistics are to be cited in this manner, we must at least make every reasonable effort to get them right.

Having made a couple of silly errors myself in this thread, I can at least say that I acknowledged them and tried to put them right.

P.S. Dave : I like your points about death rather than dishonour ! As you say, the catastrophic demographic damage suffered by France 1914-1918 left her honour intact : the phsychological damage of defeat and collaboration a generation later was perhaps more perncious, even if casualties were much lower.

Phil (PJA)

[david lee]

Hi Phil, guys,

Comprehensive agreement with your last two posts Phil.

John Terraine is one of my 'heroes' also, of course.

I (like most of us) choose my heroes carefully ----having long since outgrown the Laffins, Liddel-Harts, Morris' Clark and Keegans-----an over-rated historian, who still, in spite of the wealth of evidence militating against such a discredited view, dogmatically holds to a "hideously unattractive group, those British Generals...." type of rhetoric...Has he not studied Plumer----Allenby----Byng---Rawlinson---Birdwood---Monro---etc. etc.

As for Haig----well, another 'Great man'---like Trenchard, flawed a bit---but both great by any standard.

I think (obviously a 'like interest' for us both) your point about the Civil War being no bloodier than the Napoleonic wars is, within reason, correct, but the apparent lethality conferred by the rifle (be it the matchless 'Enfield' or 'Springfield' ) increased the lethality of the attack over the defense in a way that was not all that much bettered in WW1.

Rifled artillery, the steam train, the riverboat (which robbed battlefield victories of much of there meaning, as fresh armies could be rapidly transported) and the rapid, though illusory, ascendancy of the South on the battlefield, if nowhere else, all resulted in a very deadly rate of battlefield attrition indeed.

I am torn between my natural urge not to equate one war with another and the obvious NEED to do just that, sometimes, and as for WW2 and Britains military effort---which was prodigious, but as far as the infantry on the ground was concerned, not in any way comparable with the earlier war-----we must not forget the tremendous efforts made by the Royal Navy (it was always so----recall the 'I do not say Napoleon will not come, I only say he will not come by sea' (I paraphrase a bit, as I am not consulting my books Phil, but you know what I am getting at) and the Merchant Navy----and to forget the Illustrious and tragic (though, that word again, honourable) Bomber Command would be most invidious.

Like the RFC/ RAF in WW1 ----the March 1918 offensive was certainly massively contained by incessant, self sacrificial, ground attacks, by just about every type----suited to it, or not. Imagine trench strafing in just about anything ('Winged Victory' rams it home) BUT to imagine doing it in a 'Harry Tate' or 'Big Ak' just about transcends heroism and moves it into a loftier plane altogether---I think.

After April, with The Germans contained, then the inexorable process of battlefield defeat begun, the RAF continued the ground attacks relentlessly (indeed, many German scout pilots took full advantage of height to knock down low fliers who were helping, in no small measure, to win the war, whilst their German counterparts were merely adding meaningless numbers (the acceptance of dreadful casualties again, with victory the end result) of British 'Camels' etc. to their personal scores.

Where were the light bomb rack fitted D. VII's, Pfalz and Albatri? Why were German scouts not incessantly 'bombing and shooting up everything---low flying essential---all risks to be taken' involved in such operations....?

Ooops! I am wandering too far here I feel, but suffice it for me to re-iterate Phil that we share (as most of us) complete agreement on most of this history of battlefields (land, sea or air) and only differ, slightly, in our opinion that the Somme dead are somehow a thing apart.

I mention again the confirmed 50,000 Roman dead (some sources put it as high as 70,000) at CANNAE, in an eight hour working day!-----Confirmed by sources, but also by the unique fact that after that disaster to Roman arms----in Italy, Rome commenced freeing slaves and stripping temples of dedicatory weapons....!! And CANNAE was just the last in a deadly list of Hannibals destruction of Roman army's---at the TICINUS, at TREBBIA, at lake TRASIMENE-----destroyed Roman army's.... Deadly day's that Rome, to its honour, came through.

Cheers,

Dave.

[salesie]

It seems to me that many contributors to this thread are "spinning" out of control - trying to find as many different ways as possible to say precisely the same thing.

Sure, Corrigan's figures are suspect, which makes his conclusions a bit "iffy" - but I say that any conclusions drawn from statistical analysis alone are just as "iffy". Many a time, Phil (PJA), I've chided you for your apparent obsession with casualty stats, told you that your many "football-score" statistical comparisons hide the real picture in both human and strategic terms. Now it seems that Corrigan has turned the tables on you, and now it is you who doesn't like being confronted with shallow statistical analysis - perhaps you now understand the frustration that many of us have felt for quite some time now?

Here's what I posted in a culture thread (April MGWAT) a couple of days ago, getting my thrust from the ever-decreasing circular arguments of this thread.

"It seems to me, that it wasn't just the dead of WW1 who lost something, hence my "Everyone danced" line earlier. The "fighting" survivors, who were in a majority of some eighty-odd percent, and many civilians back at home lost as well - hence history's "Lost Generation" tag. Some lost their health because of wounds and sickness contracted in the trenches. Some lost their youth, but not all, there were just as many over-age volunteers as under-age, but the over-aged lost something as well. Many lost their sense of security; brought face to face with their own mortality in the starkest of terms etc.

The list is almost endless, the human cost, in many ways, is virtually immeasurable. Yet modern historians tell us there was in fact no "Lost Generation" of WW1 - to make their case, they use bare statistics; they use facts and figures that tell us the vast majority marched home again. To be fair, I not only understand the case they make but agree with much of it.

However, I'm of the opinion that this creed goes too far i.e. if human-experience is reduced to mere statistical analysis then our generation will also become "lost"; if we take their analysis as fact then we will all lose-out because being human is much more abstract than definitive, is much more than stark conclusions drawn by number-crunchers. To rely on statistical analysis alone is to deny that human-emotion exists, yet isn't emotion the very thing that leads to war in the first place? Without emotions why would be bother to fight as well as love?

Statistically there was no "Lost Generation", but emotionally there was; a whole generation lost something that no amount of number-crunching comparisons can ever hope to define."

In other words, number crunching is one thing, but understanding why WW1 had such a profound effect on the collective British psyche is quite another. Why the British populace readily accepted the idea of “Lions led by Donkeys” will never be fully understood, nor overturned, by statistical analysis/comparisons alone; the whole notion is much more abstract than that.

Cheers-salesie.

[david lee]

It seems to me that many contributors to this thread are "spinning" out of control - trying to find as many different ways as possible to say precisely the same thing.

Sure, Corrigan's figures are suspect, which makes his conclusions a bit "iffy" - but I say that any conclusions drawn from statistical analysis alone are just as "iffy". Many a time, Phil (PJA), I've chided you for your apparent obsession with casualty stats, told you that your many "football-score" statistical comparisons hide the real picture in both human and strategic terms. Now it seems that Corrigan has turned the tables on you, and now it is you who doesn't like being confronted with shallow statistical analysis - perhaps you now understand the frustration that many of us have felt for quite some time now?

Here's what I posted in a culture thread (April MGWAT) a couple of days ago, getting my thrust from the ever-decreasing circular arguments of this thread.

"It seems to me, that it wasn't just the dead of WW1 who lost something, hence my "Everyone danced" line earlier. The "fighting" survivors, who were in a majority of some eighty-odd percent, and many civilians back at home lost as well - hence history's "Lost Generation" tag. Some lost their health because of wounds and sickness contracted in the trenches. Some lost their youth, but not all, there were just as many over-age volunteers as under-age, but the over-aged lost something as well. Many lost their sense of security; brought face to face with their own mortality in the starkest of terms etc.

The list is almost endless, the human cost, in many ways, is virtually immeasurable. Yet modern historians tell us there was in fact no "Lost Generation" of WW1 - to make their case, they use bare statistics; they use facts and figures that tell us the vast majority marched home again. To be fair, I not only understand the case they make but agree with much of it.

However, I'm of the opinion that this creed goes too far i.e. if human-experience is reduced to mere statistical analysis then our generation will also become "lost"; if we take their analysis as fact then we will all lose-out because being human is much more abstract than definitive, is much more than stark conclusions drawn by number-crunchers. To rely on statistical analysis alone is to deny that human-emotion exists, yet isn't emotion the very thing that leads to war in the first place? Without emotions why would be bother to fight as well as love?

Statistically there was no "Lost Generation", but emotionally there was; a whole generation lost something that no amount of number-crunching comparisons can ever hope to define."

In other words, number crunching is one thing, but understanding why WW1 had such a profound effect on the collective British psyche is quite another. Why the British populace readily accepted the idea of "Lions led by Donkeys" will never be fully understood, nor overturned, by statistical analysis/comparisons alone; the whole notion is much more abstract than that.

Cheers-salesie.

Certainly glad you have not descended to attempt to "chide" me sir! And I refute "spinning" anywhere! Comparisons of battlefield dead are what this thread is all about---is it not? Am I alone in finding your post a tad condescending, not to say rude?

I am one (amongst many) who see's no case for a 'lost generation'. Britain was fighting for its survival (in both 'German' wars), and the sacrifice was entirely worth it.

Did Germany have a 'lost generation'----France came closest to it, but this myth is nowhere apparent in those country's perceptions.

Do we here of it in Russia---- the erstwhile country's that made up Austria-Hungary---anywhere else, in fact.

I mentioned 'insular myopia' in an earlier post. This 'lost generation mythology is that myopia, encapsulated.

Cheers,

Dave.

[salesie]

Certainly glad you have not descended to attempt to "chide" me sir! And I refute "spinning" anywhere! Comparisons of battlefield dead are what this thread is all about---is it not? Am I alone in finding your post a tad condescending, not to say rude?

I am one (amongst many) who see's no case for a 'lost generation'. Britain was fighting for its survival (in both 'German' wars), and the sacrifice was entirely worth it.

Did Germany have a 'lost generation'----France came closest to it, but this myth is nowhere apparent in those country's perceptions.

Do we here of it in Russia---- the erstwhile country's that made up Austria-Hungary---anywhere else, in fact.

I mentioned 'insular myopia' in an earlier post. This 'lost generation mythology is that myopia, encapsulated.

Cheers,

Dave.

Thanks for reinforcing my point, Dave. The "Lost Generation" is far from being mythological. Sure, statistically it's a myth, but it has a very real presence in the collective British psyche.

Whether you like it or not, it actually exists in fact, and it's not just good enough to say that it's myopic, it's just not good enough to number-crunch your way to an answer, or say that Germany, France etc. don't have the same hang-ups, or that we were fighting for survival so it was well-worth it. In my opinion, these are extremely shallow non-answers that ignore the reality that "The Lost Generation" is far from being mythological in the collective British psyche. You'll have to come up with a lot more depth in your response, Dave, sound-bites don't quite do it for me.

Also, as you say, this thread is about statistical comparisons, but it is also about an attempt (by Corrigan), by the use of statistics, to change opinions - to that end, I believe that my post is well in-tune with this threads theme i.e. I'm giving an opinion about the value of the use of statistical analysis/comparisons alone in the attempts by some to alter said opinions.

And, bear in my mind, I agree that the "Lions led by Donkeys" school of thought is not only wrong but seriously flawed in logic, that it does nothing but insult the intelligence of our forefathers who fought in WW1. But I also recognise the abstract power and reality of such notions, and can't for the life of me see how shallow, sound-bite, analysis will alter it.

Cheers-salesie.

[david lee]

Thanks for reinforcing my point, Dave. The "Lost Generation" is far from being mythological. Sure, statistically it's a myth, but it has a very real presence in the collective British psyche.

Whether you like it or not, it actually exists in fact, and it's not just good enough to say that it's myopic, it's just not good enough to number-crunch your way to an answer, or say that Germany, France etc. don't have the same hang-ups, or that we were fighting for survival so it was well-worth it. In my opinion, these are extremely shallow non-answers that ignore the reality that "The Lost Generation" is far from being mythological in the collective British psyche. You'll have to come up with a lot more depth in your response, Dave, sound-bites don't quite do it for me.

Also, as you say, this thread is about statistical comparisons, but it is also about an attempt (by Corrigan), by the use of statistics, to change opinions - to that end, I believe that my post is well in-tune with this threads theme i.e. I'm giving an opinion about the value of the use of statistical analysis/comparisons alone in the attempts by some to alter said opinions.

And, bear in my mind, I agree that the "Lions led by Donkeys" school of thought is not only wrong but seriously flawed in logic, that it does nothing but insult the intelligence of our forefathers who fought in WW1. But I also recognise the abstract power and reality of such notions, and can't for the life of me see how shallow, sound-bite, analysis will alter it.

Cheers-salesie.

There you go again though sir, adding "shallow---non-answer" type sound bites of your very own to your earlier "chiding" and "spinning". You sound like a teacher 'instructing' a class full of recalcitrant school children.

You are not the one, and we are not the other!

How I "reinforce" your point escapes me. You talk of the 'lost generation' as a palpable reality----I talk of it as a myth. That it has wide currency here does not alter its mythic qualities. Homers ILIAD was considered history and almost 'Bible' to the enlightened Greeks of the 5th. century BC----yet myth it remains!

I applaud the fact that we obviously (Lions led by Donkeys) share some things in common, but deprecate the implied superiority of your views over anyone else's. I, for one, am not used to being 'chided' (though you have not got around to that, exactly---yet) nor am I used to being accused of "shallowness" nor have I resorted to any "number crunching".

I do not know you---nor you me. Perhaps you are qualified to "chide" ---and perhaps you arrogate too much to yourself salesie.

Cheers,

Dave.

[salesie]

There you go again though sir, adding "shallow---non-answer" type sound bites of your very own to your earlier "chiding" and "spinning". You sound like a teacher 'instructing' a class full of recalcitrant school children.

You are not the one, and we are not the other!

I applaud the fact that we obviously (Lions led by Donkeys) share some things in common, but deprecate the implied superiority of your views over anyone else's. I, for one, am not used to being 'chided' (though you have not got around to that, exactly---yet) nor am I used to being accused of "shallowness" nor have I resorted to any "number crunching".

I do not know you---nor you me. Perhaps you are qualified to "chide" ---and perhaps you arrogate too much to yourself salesie.

Cheers,

Dave.

Maybe I do arrogate, Dave, and accusing me of being like a teacher is perhaps the worst insult anyone could throw at me. But, nonetheless, I still await real answers to the pertinent points I've raised.

Cheers-salesie.

[david lee]

Hi salesie, To 'talk' like a teacher is to be accused of sounding like one----this is not a classroom.

But enough of that I trust,

Let me make some 'shallow' effort then----I quote---

"

"It seems to me, that it wasn't just the dead of WW1 who lost something, hence my "Everyone danced" line earlier. The "fighting" survivors, who were in a majority of some eighty-odd percent, and many civilians back at home lost as well - hence history's "Lost Generation" tag. Some lost their health because of wounds and sickness contracted in the trenches. Some lost their youth, but not all, there were just as many over-age volunteers as under-age, but the over-aged lost something as well. Many lost their sense of security; brought face to face with their own mortality in the starkest of terms etc."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is unique?

What did Cetshwayo say of his 'victory' at Isandhlwana-----that an "Assegai had been thrust into the belly of the nation---there are not enough tears to mourn the dead"

Nearly a tenth of HIS army ----nearly one tenth----were killed or wounded (and the .45 calibre bullet of the Martini Henry administered terrible wounds) in a single afternoon in that British 'disaster'

So, we have all your components----deadly battlefield----- two stricken armies---dead and wounded----the 'civilians' back home (be it Welsh hills or Zulu Kraals mourning the dead---the wounded, and recall the terrible disfiguring and painful, even agonising, wounds that slug inflicted--- destroying their health. Why do we imagine that the 'sense of security' of the average Zulu was not imperilled after Isandhlwana? Of course it was, in a way totally dissimilar to the average redcoated soldier.

What is the difference? Roman matrons and fathers mourning their dead---or Greek, or Assyrian---or French after "Cressy battle fatally was struck". Whence 'lost generation' myths here. No, as Corelli Barnett said---Wooden leg myth!

Cheers,

Dave.

[phil andrade]

Many a time, Phil (PJA), I've chided you for your apparent obsession with casualty stats, told you that your many "football-score" statistical comparisons hide the real picture in both human and strategic terms. Now it seems that Corrigan has turned the tables on you, and now it is you who doesn't like being confronted with shallow statistical analysis - perhaps you now understand the frustration that many of us have felt for quite some time now?

Cheers-salesie.

You rage at the splinter in my eye, and ignore the plank in your own !

Phil (PJA)

[salesie]

Hi salesie, To 'talk' like a teacher is to be accused of sounding like one----this is not a classroom.

But enough of that I trust,

Let me make some 'shallow' effort then----I quote---

"

"It seems to me, that it wasn't just the dead of WW1 who lost something, hence my "Everyone danced" line earlier. The "fighting" survivors, who were in a majority of some eighty-odd percent, and many civilians back at home lost as well - hence history's "Lost Generation" tag. Some lost their health because of wounds and sickness contracted in the trenches. Some lost their youth, but not all, there were just as many over-age volunteers as under-age, but the over-aged lost something as well. Many lost their sense of security; brought face to face with their own mortality in the starkest of terms etc."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is unique?

What did Cetshwayo say of his 'victory' at Isandhlwana-----that an "Assegai had been thrust into the belly of the nation---there are not enough tears to mourn the dead"

Nearly a tenth of HIS army ----nearly one tenth----were killed or wounded (and the .45 calibre bullet of the Martini Henry administered terrible wounds) in a single afternoon in that British 'disaster'

So, we have all your components----deadly battlefield----- two stricken armies---dead and wounded----the 'civilians' back home (be it Welsh hills or Zulu Kraals mourning the dead---the wounded, and recall the terrible disfiguring and painful, even agonising, wounds that slug inflicted--- destroying their health. Why do we imagine that the 'sense of security' of the average Zulu was not imperilled after Isandhlwana? Of course it was, in a way totally dissimilar to the average redcoated soldier.

What is the difference? Roman matrons and fathers mourning their dead---or Greek, or Assyrian---or French after "Cressy battle fatally was struck". Whence 'lost generation' myths here. No, as Corelli Barnett said---Wooden leg myth!

Cheers,

Dave.

All you do is make further comparisons to make your point, Dave. No need, you've already made enough of those to make precisely the same point - I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree that such comparisons have much, if any, value in moving this debate forward.

You ask what is unique about WW1? Your own posts give a bit of the answer i.e. if the collective British psyche had not been imbued with the "Lost Generation" belief then you would not need to ask such a question. It's uniqueness lies in the fact that the British alone have "allowed" this war to enter their very soul.

All your comparisons do, in essence, is address a very real phenomenon as if you're telling someone to get out of bed and get to work because they only have a cold i.e. get-a-grip for God's sake, and stop whinging, it's only a myth - look at all these others, they suffered as well but they didn't take it to heart, they got on with it.

The problem with that approach is two-fold:

1) The majority of the British people don't/didn't really care about the fate of others; they don't/didn't really care about ancient Romans or Greeks, or about past British wars (those wars didn't impact on the country anywhere near as much as WW1 did), they don't/didn't really care about Zulus, or the Germans (they deserved what they got) or even care about their French allies too much. The British psyche suffered great trauma in WW1, for a myriad of reasons, and no amount of comparisons with other casualties in other wars, ancient or modern, is going to change such deep-rooted, and sometimes justifiable (war is a curse when all's said and done), beliefs.

2) The British people, though traumatised by WW1, did get on with that war, and other wars when the need arose - so such beliefs, though deeply held, did/do not impact on our ability/willingness to fight when the need arose/arises. But such beliefs did/do perhaps make us, as a nation, less than willing to enter into combat. And that, in my opinion, can't be a wholly bad thing stemming from what you call "mythology" (despite the fact that such an unwillingness to fight almost gave Hitler free-rein).

In other words, Dave, if you wish to change such deep-rooted beliefs then, in my opinion, shallow and thus meaningless statistical comparisons ain't going to do the trick - that's been tried, in many a publication, for a good few years now and has hardly changed popular perceptions.

The "ee-aw Brigade's" message is a very powerful one in this country, and just preaching "it's all a myth", “there’s no honour in not fighting” along with statistical comparisons with Zulus and Romans et al doesn't even come close to matching such potency.

Cheers-salesie.

[salesie]

You rage at the splinter in my eye, and ignore the plank in your own !

Phil (PJA)

On the contrary, Phil - I see Corrigan's statistical analysis (if it is as you say it is) to be just as shallow and meaningless as your own "football-score" analyses posted on this forum (too many to mention).

Cheers-salesie.

[phil andrade]

On the contrary, Phil - I see Corrigan's statistical analysis (if it is as you say it is) to be just as shallow and meaningless as your own "football-score" analyses posted on this forum (too many to mention).

Cheers-salesie.

Football score ? Is that what you see ? Try looking a bit harder, then.

Phil (PJA)

[david lee]

On the contrary, Phil - I see Corrigan's statistical analysis (if it is as you say it is) to be just as shallow and meaningless as your own "football-score" analyses posted on this forum (too many to mention).

Cheers-salesie.

salesie,

And my own view on comparisons is attested here, in my first post. But once started along the path, I believe it is perfectly correct to widen the scope'

The debate is whether or not the Somme deserves an especial place in the grim realities of battlefield dead----I firmly believe my comparisons (allowed because the entire thread is about comparisons) proves that it does not. Grim though it was---as Terraine would say, the only remarkable thing about it is that Britain was spared for so long!

I actually never asked "what is unique about WW1" The whole thrust of my argument is that, casualties wise, NOTHING was unique about the British experience of WW1----only the post war mythology is unique.

Now, I would say to a devout Christian that the entire foundation of his religion is based on Bronze age sky god mythology---indeed, ALL religions are based on no solid foundations---of course millions of very good people, and a few millions of not so good, firmly believe they are right----but they are not! What they consider truth is actually mythology. I am not responsible for their misconceptions, and the same holds true for the strangely British 'lost generation' myth.

You do me a disservice to imply that my historical battlefield dead analogies throughout history are anything to do with the 'lost generation' myth. They are to do with the main thrust of this thread----that much should be obvious salesie.

Whether or not the British psyche takes any interest in Zulu dead (it actually does--and did, read Bishop Colenso's daughters sympathetic treatment of them) although one usually very good historian actually goes too far recently when he says the Zulu's were pastoralist farmers!!----yes, of course they were! so were the Vikings--and if you believe that you will believe anything. or has, or has not, any fellow feeling for Germans in war (why on earth would we) is quite academic I think. As for French allies---well, I am dubious about how much fellowship the French, for whose country and freedom (as well as 'gallant little Belgiums') we were fighting the greatest war in our long and Illustrious history of war, had for US!

However salesie------please do not percieve this as a weakness---I do see the logic and essential truth in some of your last post----points I think we would all agree on---but they are, themselves, hardly contentious points, and someone less charitable than myself might even label them as shallow points.

Cheers,

Dave.

[salesie]

Football score ? Is that what you see ? Try looking a bit harder, then.

Phil (PJA)

Phil, I was careful to write "your own "football-score" analyses posted on this forum (too many to mention)". In other words, I was reflecting on your past performance in other threads not in this one. And, to that end, I find your criticism of Corrigan to be deliciously ironic given your own past performance with casualty stats.

Cheers-salesie.

[keithmroberts]

gents,

Please can we stick to the subject, not to comments about each other, or each others posts.

There is a genuine subject to debate, and if we talk about each other, rather than about the issues we will have a wasted, and potentially acrimonious thread.

Keith

[salesie]

salesie,

And my own view on comparisons is attested here, in my first post. But once started along the path, I believe it is perfectly correct to widen the scope'

The debate is whether or not the Somme deserves an especial place in the grim realities of battlefield dead----I firmly believe my comparisons (allowed because the entire thread is about comparisons) proves that it does not. Grim though it was---as Terraine would say, the only remarkable thing about it is that Britain was spared for so long!

I actually never asked "what is unique about WW1" The whole thrust of my argument is that, casualties wise, NOTHING was unique about the British experience of WW1----only the post war mythology is unique.

Now, I would say to a devout Christian that the entire foundation of his religion is based on Bronze age sky god mythology---indeed, ALL religions are based on no solid foundations---of course millions of very good people, and a few millions of not so good, firmly believe they are right----but they are not! What they consider truth is actually mythology. I am not responsible for their misconceptions, and the same holds true for the strangely British 'lost generation' myth.

You do me a disservice to imply that my historical battlefield dead analogies throughout history are anything to do with the 'lost generation' myth. They are to do with the main thrust of this thread----that much should be obvious salesie.

Whether or not the British psyche takes any interest in Zulu dead (it actually does--and did, read Bishop Colenso's daughters sympathetic treatment of them) although one usually very good historian actually goes too far recently when he says the Zulu's were pastoralist farmers!!----yes, of course they were! so were the Vikings--and if you believe that you will believe anything. or has, or has not, any fellow feeling for Germans in war (why on earth would we) is quite academic I think. As for French allies---well, I am dubious about how much fellowship the French, for whose country and freedom (as well as 'gallant little Belgiums') we were fighting the greatest war in our long and Illustrious history of war, had for US!

However salesie------please do not percieve this as a weakness---I do see the logic and essential truth in some of your last post----points I think we would all agree on---but they are, themselves, hardly contentious points, and someone less charitable than myself might even label them as shallow points.

Cheers,

Dave.

Well, if my points are too shallow to elicit direct answers from you, Dave, then I'll leave you and Phil in peace - because I've no intention of going around in circles and attempting to see how many different ways I can make precisely the same point (that may get my post count up, but it won't add any substance to what I'm actually saying). Unless, of course, you’d like to prove how shallow my posts are by introducing some depth of your very own?

Cheers-salesie.

PS. Do you really believe that the actions of some obscure bishop's daughters, no matter how laudable, can be taken as a valid representation of the collective British psyche? That assertion seems like an act of blind-faith in and of itself!

[salesie]

gents,

Please can we stick to the subject, not to comments about each other, or each others posts.

There is a genuine subject to debate, and if we talk about each other, rather than about the issues we will have a wasted, and potentially acrimonious thread.

Keith

Sorry, I was writing my latest post when you posted, Keith. I'll withdraw from the thread, I've said my piece.

Cheers-salesie.

[squirrel]

Shame it had to come to this and a comparison with religion must be a last resort.

FWIW I will admit that the resources and maths are beyond me but.......would not a percentage of casualties compared to those actually engaged (not allocated) settle the matter?

[bill24chev]

Surely the end of a discussion occurs when a certain Austrian/Bavarian corporal is mentioned?

[david lee]

Surely the end of a discussion occurs when a certain Austrian/Bavarian corporal is mentioned?

Why would that be? Was he not involved in WW1---and is it not generally a truism that WW2 was simply the extension of, the second act of, one war! Did HE not account for the greatest bloodletting in the history of battle. Moreover, what war do we imagine Normandy and 'D' day, and the events and dead after it belong to?

I struggle to understand any logic for these criticisms I'm afraid.

"Shallowness" was your accusation against me salesie, first---remember! I did not go off in a petulant 'huff'.

As for religion being some sort of taboo subject------I ask again, Why? I have not introduced a theological discussion here. I simply used religion as an analogy for fuzzy thinking mythology. Anyway, I claim extra legitimacy for In the long history of warfare and battlefield dead has religion not played a part? That would be shallow thinking indeed.

However, so as not to offend anyone (which is not my default position, but seems to be salesies) I too will drop out of this thread. It was really enjoyable until personal attacks by salesie spoilt it.

Dave.

[phil andrade]

Sad to see you leaving, Dave.

I enjoyed the discussion with you.

You might reconsider and resume, now that salesie has pulled out.

I hope so.

Phil (PJA)

[keithmroberts]

I don't actually see why anyone need withdraw from the thread, so long as discussion remains focussed on the issue, and not on individuals.

keith

[david lee]

Sad to see you leaving, Dave.

I enjoyed the discussion with you.

You might reconsider and resume, now that salesie has pulled out.

I hope so.

Phil (PJA)

Thanks for the kind words Phil. You are very erudite and I also enjoy our chats. I probably think on this one though I will remain out, but assure you of my best intentions and we will chat again soon I am sure.

Cheers,

Dave.

[phil andrade]

Using Corrigan's formula of assessing divisional deaths per week, it must be clear that the Somme exceeded Normandy by a significant margin, and that the claim made for Normandy in his analysis is refuted by the numbers from the CWGC registers.

This needs to be qualified by focusing on the experience of the rifle companies in 1944. Only one quarter of the men in the infantry divisions that fought in Normandy served in the 36 rifle companies within each division, and these men suffered the great majority of the casualties. If one quarter of the men in an infantry division suffered three quarters of the fatalities, then the rifle man in 1944 faced terrifying odds.

I hope to find out how far this disparity was the case in the infantry divisions in the Great War.. I'm sure that the proportion of men that were actually committed to battle was higher, but there must have been significant numbers who, for one reason or another, did not get into the fighting.

Gary Sheffield writes :

In the 1944-5 north-west European campaign, battalions suffered a minimum of 100 per month but 175 per month was not uncommon.

Between June 6th 1944 and April 28th 1945 - nearly eleven months - the 1st Battalion The Gordon Highlanders sustained 1,061 casualties, an average of just about 100 per month. By Sheffield's reckoning, then, this battalion - part of the 51st Highland Division - suffered "minimum" casualty rates ! I doubt it . Few battalions in the British army were more intensively engaged : apparently, rather more than one quarter of the casualties were fatal, which suggests a monthly average of about 25 -26 killed or died of wounds every month. That would make a good yardstick for comparison with the Great War.

Phil (PJA)