The Somme, Defeat into Victory

[griffy]

I liked it for what it was; a mainstream television docu/drama aimed at the general public and gently challenging their perceptions of the battle. In one hour, they could do no more.

Must just challenge a small part of bmac's post above. The fact that Morland was well thought of by Haig, does not strike me as indisputable evidence of a mans ability to command. One might argue the contrary was true.

[PhilB]

Stress appeared to be laid on the learning process. Surely only a dolt would fail to learn from calamitous battles like those? I don`t think it sufficient to say "July 1st was a disaster but they learnt", one should ask "July 1st was an absolute catastrophe. Did they learn as much or as fast as they ought to have done?" Phil B

Incidentally, why did Morland choose to repeat the head on assault on Thiepval rather than go through the Schwaben and round the back?

[davedixon]

I didnt find it interesting.

It was too mainstream and basic.

I gave up before the end.

Something I have never done before.

I much prefered the Channel 5 programme on friday evening.

Dave.

[bmac]

Must just challenge a small part of bmac's post above. The fact that Morland was well thought of by Haig, does not strike me as indisputable evidence of a mans ability to command. One might argue the contrary was true.

I wasn't stating an opinion I was stating a fact. Personally I have precious little time for Haig.

[AndyMacdonald]

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.

Fair point. Wrong word, which I have since deleted from my post. However, I do not believe the Somme was a victory for either the British or German armies. Why does there have to be a winner, although 'draw' is hardly a word I would use. The argument is complex and well beyond the scope of this modest post. I stand by my comments earlier and pose some questions about Somme studies generally. Why is it that some British historians feel compelled to find a silver lining to the British experience on the Somme? Surely any attempt to rationalise the irrational with revisionism is pointless? Why do they bother? What do they hope to achieve? Why is there such an en-masse rush to subscribe to this revisionism? What happened to careful contemplation? And, so the pendulum swings from one decade to the next. No, I'm not of the Lions/Donkeys school and nor am I pro one side or the other. I do advocate ongoing study of the Somme by people from all walks of life. I will add, in closing, that it will be a sad day when the study of the Somme is left solely to academics and self-described aficianados. That's why sites such as this are so great because - after all - war is a very personal thing.

[PhilB]

Why is it that some British historians feel compelled to find a silver lining to the British experience on the Somme?

Something I`ve wondered about too. I suspect it may be a secondary conclusion. First you decide that the generals were fine upstanding aristocratic men doing their very best and with the troops` best interests at heart. Having done that, you have to assume that after a catastrophe like 1/7/16, due to factors largely outside their control, they learnt all that could possibly be learnt. On the other hand, if you`ve pre-decided that the generals were of a somewhat lower intellect, then you must assume....

I do find it unlikely that anyone could plough through WW1 battles, tactics, strategy and learning curves while keeping an open undecided mind towards the generals. Did you? Phil B

[JPJarman]

I enjoyed the fact that the BBC saw fit to screen anything at all.

Had we not taken up the gauntlet at that time, France may well have lost so many men at Verdun that she would have been incapable of continuing. Haig had no choice but to commit troops to the battle at the time and place chosen by Joffre.

I was grateful for the the respect shown, to those that took part and gave their all.

I am thankful that it has inspired my daughter to take an interest in the subject, and earnt me an ally in the family, someone else to share my interest in learning all that one can and at the same time ensuring that the incomprehensible efforts made by so many in such trying conditions will not fade into the past. (even my wife now has a better appreciation of what happened and what keeps me hooked to the subject)

I was disappointed that the 1st of July commemorations were overshadowed by the thuggish behaviour of some of our contemporary icons but "hey ho" that is the media for you.

I am sorry that I missed the Chanel 5 programme.

The Lions led by Donkeys - so readily banded about by those with little or no appreciation of the conditions of the time equal the the braying of those who cried foul after the conviction of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four and the murderers of Carl Bridgewater.

So I conclude that the programme was a success even if some it was factually suspect.

John

[PhilB]

The Lions led by Donkeys - so readily banded about by those with little or no appreciation of the conditions of the time John

John, almost invariably the men I`ve spoken to who served at the Somme & Passchendaele were in the Lions Led by Donkeys camp. Were they misguided too? Phil B

[Mark A]

Phil, A couple of thoughts:

I don't think they were misguided at all, they have an opinion, based on their first hand experiences. Veterans accounts are massively valuable. But I do think, with respect, that first hand accounts need to be handled carefully by the historian. The men who served and survived have a range of opinions ( a trawl through the sound archives/interviews at the IPW with those that survived the war- shows a massive range of views about how they were led) and you can't make generalisations.

[PhilB]

I take your point, Mark, but one has little option but to generalize when forming an opinion on WW1 generalship? Certainly first hand accounts from the bottom end need to be carefully handled, but so do accounts from those with a vested interest in presenting good generalship, as I`m sure you`ll agree.

The assessment of generalship loses much of its objectivity though when people holding one view are deemed to have "little or no appreciation of the conditions of the time" because they hold a different view to the writer! Phil B

[Mark A]

Phil- absolutely. It goes for both "ends" (the leaders and the led) as you say. There's a good quote from John Huizinga who had some advice for all historians. He said that a historian must always " maintain towards his subject an indeterminist point of view. He must constantly put himself at a point in the past at which the known factors still seem to permit different outcomes".

M

[PhilB]

Quite! And that`s a very difficult position for the very amateur historian to put himself in. (I find!) Phil B

[Mark A]

Yeah- the first world war must be one of the knottiest issues out there. My theory is that "the public" tends to see the first world war through the prism of the war poets, most people are taught them at school, and it rather skews the debate. My problem is the "lions led by donkeys" theory has become a kind of off the shelf, ready made response that people don't have to question. It's just accepted as a truth ( I find anyway). And at least last night's programme gently nudged the debate off the first day and on to new ground...

I think, regardless of one's views (personally I think the generals were too slow to learn and the somme as victory revisonist school overstate their case), that has to be welcomed.

[Brummie Nick]

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

Good point It was TV for the masses, most viewers arn't interested if the troops are wearing the wrong helmet, or the incorrect uniform.

Well done the BBC

Nick

[dah]

I enjoyed it too. Very Thiepval focussed as said by others, but taught me a thing or two I hadn't quite picked up before (if true).

Maybe I need to re-watch the programme - but I hadn't previously thought that the Ulster men effectively occupied/took over the Schwaben Redoubt as it seemed to imply. I thought they went steaming through it, past it and carried on towards Grandcourt, got isolated from reinforcement and gradually killed, wounded, taken prisoner or forced to withdraw.

I particularly like to see the map animations to show the troop movements relative to the key positions. I often stand around at Thiepval and try to figure out who was where in relation to the main objectives and how that corresponds with what we see today.

I had hoped to see something more from the helicopter view. I note that Michael Stedman was also an adviser....and, when we had a WFA branch presentation sometime in the last year, he filled us (me at least) with envy that he was off to assist the BBC in making a programme which involved him flying around in a high-spec helicopter for 5 days over the Somme....with the same state-of-the-art camera equipment as used in the last David Attenborough series....which can zoom in on moving or fixed objects from miles away with incredible stability and level of detail. Is there another prog in the making somewhere - or did the helicopter footage (all bar few a few snatches over Thiepval and Beaumont Hamel) end up on the cutting room floor.

But....still watched every minute of it. Thank you BBC,

David

[Take on me]

Why is it that some British historians feel compelled to find a silver lining to the British experience on the Somme? Surely any attempt to rationalise the irrational with revisionism is pointless? Why do they bother? What do they hope to achieve?

I think, perhaps, they wish the Somme to be viewed in a different light. For many years it has been seen as a futile bloodbath and they are trying to demonstrate that while it was a bloodbath it was not entirely futile and had many effects on the war as a whole, such as attrition on the German Army, relieving Verdun and contribution to the 'learning curve'.

The problem is that it can go a little too far. The documentary last night did so because it ignored the many bloody attacks between the 1st July and the 15 September attacks. These actions gained little ground and were far more costly in total than the 1st July. It also ignored the bloody attacks after the 15th September. Such actions indicate that the High Command, though learning, was doing so slowly.

JGM

[Gibbo]

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.

According to McCrae's Battalion by Jack Alexander, the 101st Brigade of the 34th Division, III Corps, ordered its battalion HQs not to take part in the attack at 1:05 am on 1 July. This order didn't apply to the other 2 brigades of this division; all 4 battalion COs of the 102nd (Tyneside Scottish) were killed & in the 103rd (Tyneside Irish) one was killed & two, plus Brigadier-General Cameron, wounded. The 8th Division, also of III Corps, suffered heavy casualties amongst battalion COs; 2 killed, 2 died of wounds & 4 wounded. However, the final division of this corps, the 19th, lost no senior officers. Morland's X Corps lost one killed & 2 wounded in the 32nd Division, one killed in the 36th & one wounded in the 49th. Officer casualties are taken from Middlebrook.

This suggests an inconsistency not just between different corps but between divisions of the same corps & even brigades of the same division. Middlebrook says on p. 162;

'The lieutenant-colonels should have stayed in their own trenches, leaving their company and platoon commanders to lead the initial attack; no one could command a unit as big as a battalion in the confusion of No Man's Land. Indeed, many COs had been specifically ordered not to take part in the attack; they were to join their troops only when the objectives had been taken. But the COs not so ordered to remain behind invariably attacked with their men because their feelings prevented them from taking the safer but more reasonable course of action.'

[spike10764]

You cannot properly study the Battle of The Somme along the lines of its was all an unmitigated disaster, any more than you can study it along the lines of it was the battle that turned the tide. You have to take some of each and I thought this programme achieved that rather well...

[Lindsey]

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.

Totally agree with your comments!!!

Lindsey

[Adrian Roberts]

One interesting point: At the end of the programme, we were told that Captain Tweed, one of the few survivors of the [salford?] Pals Battalion featured in the July 1st scenes, became an advisor to Lloyd George after the war.

It is often said the the vilification of Haig took off (if not actually started) with Lloyd George's memoirs (published after Haig's death). Could it be Tweed that influenced LG in his view of Haig? Whatever the fairness of the negative view of Haig, one can fully understand why a man who had been through what Tweed experienced would be very anti the Generals.

Adrian

[armourersergeant]

One interesting point: At the end of the programme, we were told that Captain Tweed, one of the few survivors of the [salford?] Pals Battalion featured in the July 1st scenes, became an advisor to Lloyd George after the war.

It is often said the the vilification of Haig took off (if not actually started) with Lloyd George's memoirs (published after Haig's death). Could it be Tweed that influenced LG in his view of Haig? Whatever the fairness of the negative view of Haig, one can fully understand why a man who had been through what Tweed experienced would be very anti the Generals.

Adrian

I noted this peice of information as well Adrain, and wonder something similar. Though perhaps he worked with LG as their own opinions agreed. I am sure also their were as many officers who experienced similar who were not anti Haig.

regards

Arm

[Tim Birch]

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

I don't think the French objectives were any easier, although interestingly their advances were made alongside where the British also had their greatest successes which might indicate something about the quality of the defence in the south.

My understanding is that a) the French had a greater concentration of guns per metre of front, and

rather than advancing in lines at a walking pace like the British they used rush and cover tactics, with junior leaders on the spot having greater freedom to exploit gains. This indicates a higher level of experience. The British planners had laid down a rigid timetable for the British in an effort to compensate for inexperience.

Tim

[bmac]

The German High Command did not expect any offensive action by the French because of the losses at Verdun and, as a result, their defences south of the Somme were weakened by the movement of a reserve division from south of the river to the north.

The French were not only able to deploy a higher number of guns per yard but a higher proportion of these were howitzers or heavy trench mortars.

Lastly, as far as Montauban is concerned there is evidence that:

1. The defences were not as well constructed as those further to the north (i.e. La Boisselle); and

2. The artillery of the 28 RI Division responded to all requests for artillery support from the infantry during the bombardment (unlike the divisions further north that only responded when there was a real prospect of an attack). Consequently more of their guns were spotted by aircraft and balloons and, with XIII Corps using more of its artillery specifically for counter-battery fire + the assistance 16 French heavy howitzers, the 28 Division lost a high proportion of its artillery during the bombardment, something that did not happen anywhere else.

[Chris_B]

I don't know if this adds much to the debate, but having watched the BBC's programme “Defeat to Victory”, I've been wondering what the average viewer with little knowledge of the Geat War might say about it. Perhaps this:

1.The battle of the Somme centred around a place called Thiepval in France. It started on 1st July 1916 and finished sometime in late September, I think. I've not much idea what was happening in the War before this, or after really.

2.I think we fought the battle to help the French, something to do with a place called Verdun. The French seem to have had far fewer men killed on the 1st of July than us. What did they do right that we did wrong?

3.Our plan relied on obliterating the enemy with artillery before our troops attacked. The commanders, a bunch of toffs, did'nt seem to know what was going on half the time. That bloke up a tree was something straight out of Blackadder, what an idiot! Wasn't it obvious once they started that the machine guns were just mowing us down? So why did they press ahead? It was just madness, suicide. What a waste!

4.Even when they finally captured Thiepval at the second attempt, with the help of a couple of tanks, it was touch and go. But they seemed to have learnt a few lessons, and at least there was a commander on the spot who seemed to know what he was doing, a pity he got shoot later.

5.How many people did they say were killed before it was all over? Hundreds of thousands, wasn't it? And as many Germans as British, just awful really. But we won, in the end, I suppose that's the point.

Personally I found the programme rather wanting in several respects. Despite what I'm sure was extensive historical reasearch and advice I found the narrative, and the narration, rather weak. It must be very difficult to give a balanced account in just one hour, but the context and scale of the Somme events seemed lacking. In contrast to the BBC, I felt the Channel 4 programme broadcast early this year was more successful in portraying the enormity of the battle whilst still focusing on the story of a small number of individuals.

The enactment of the battle scenes were real enough, enough for me to feel that mix of extreme anger and profound saddest at the sight of line after line of advancing men melting away under the withering fire of the enemy's machine guns.

I wonder in the end if this progamme did little more than reinforce the notion of “Lions led by Donkeys”.

[PhilB]

QUOTE (Chris_B @ Jul 4 2006, 12:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wonder in the end if this progamme did little more than reinforce the notion of “Lions led by Donkeys”.

What other collective description would you give to a group of men who`d organized the killing and maiming of some 57,000 of the cream of British manhood in a few hours? Phil B