Very O/T - Battle of the Somme

[bazooka10165]

In my local bookstore yesterday I came across a book entitled the Pity of War. The thesis of the book seemed to be that inept British politicians were primarily responsible for the outbreak of WW I and for the ensuing slaughter. In any event, on the dust cover of the book it stated 1) that in the first day of the Battle of the Somme, the British army lost more men than the US did during its entire involvement in Vietnam and 2) over the course of this one battle the British army sufferred more casualties (420,000) than the US sufferred in both World Wars combined. Does this sound accurate to you history buffs?

[SS_PanzerLeader]

IIRC WWI was started by the assasination of Archduke Ferdinand. As far as the casualties go, I believe the Great War was responsible for one of the largest loss of lives in combat but Im a bit rusty on this topic

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

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[This message has been edited by SS_PanzerLeader (edited 03-30-2000).]

[tss]

bazooka10165 wrote:

The thesis of the book seemed to be that inept British politicians were primarily responsible for the outbreak of WW I

I'd say that the book exaggerates there. The beginning of WW I was a joint effort of leaders of Australo-Hungary, Germany, Russia, Britain, and France, in approximately that order of responsibility. Most emphatically, there were no "innocent victims" among the participants of that war, except possibly Serbia.

(1) that in the first day of the Battle of the Somme, the British army lost more men than the US did during its entire involvement in Vietnam

I don't know of US losses in Vietnam, but Brits lost some 60000 men on first day of Somme with 20000 dead.

(2) over the course of this one battle the British army sufferred more casualties (420,000) than the US sufferred in both World Wars combined.

That figure seems quite correct to me. Again, I don't remember details about US losses in world wars.

- Tommi

[ARCHANGEL]

US dead in Vietnam was 58,000 odd. I don't recall the numbers of wounded, even tho I am amongst them.

US dead in WW2 was something over half a million if memory serves.

One could say that the war was rather "miss-managed" strategically.

Regarding innocent victims, TSS, how is it that Serbia was "innocent"?

[This message has been edited by ARCHANGEL (edited 03-30-2000).]

[Spook]

It becomes a bit of apples & oranges when battle deaths & "casualties" are used interchangably, as casualties should represent wounded, missing, & captured as well as those killed.

I believe that the figure of 420,000 British losses at the Somme represents total casualties instead of just killed. Still, total US casualties for Vietnam were just over 200,000 for about ten years of war, while the Somme campaign stretched for five months. This gives some idea of how horrific the trench-front campaigns were in piling up losses. With the Verdun campaign added in, 1916 was indeed a truly horrific year.

Ultimately, however, the WW2 East Front would eclipse even WW1 trench warfare in terms of sheer losses.

[Neutral Party]

I read this book some time ago and found it to be very interesting and thought-provoking. Fergusson's thesis is that it was the intervention of the British that turned a potentially "local" problem into a world war.

He contends that without the presence of the BEF the German armies would probably have defeated the French and established some sort of economic hegemony in continental Europe - eventually stabilizing into a system similar to the EU.

As with all alternate histories, it is impossible to say whether this would have actually happened. In economic terms it's possible. Militarily I think it's been shown that the Schlieffen plan was fundamentally flawed - it was just not possible to get forces sufficient to take Paris into the right wheel due to the inadequacies of the French road network.

Harder to say if the French would have fought so hard if they did not have the psychological crutch of British support. Especially since their military strategy (the infamous plan XVII) was more akin to a long suicide note than a rational defense plan.

Fergusson goes very deeply into casualty figures and the economics of killing. He contends that the Germans were much more effective in killing Entente troops than vice-versa. This was primarily due to the strategic defence adopted by the Germans on the Western front. Only for a very short time in 1918 when the Germans went on the strategic offence was the situation reversed. Even towards the end of the war when the German armies were retreating they were still better at killing entente troops. The big difference at this stage in the war was that the Germans were much more likely to surrender. Fergusson goes into great detail about the psychology of surrender.

I would recommend the book if you are interested in an unusual take on the Great War. Just remember it is not a conventional military history so don't buy it if you want to read about great battles.

Joe

[guachi]

According to my World Almanac 1993:

WWI - Battle deaths 53,513

Other deaths - 63,195

Wound not mortal - 204,002

WWII - Battle deaths - 292,131

Other deaths - 115,185

Wounds not mortal - 670,846

Vietnam - Wounds not mortal 153,303

Jason

[tss]

Regarding innocent victims, TSS, how is it that Serbia was "innocent"?

Well, as far as I know the Serbian government didn't have anything to do with the assasination of Ferdinand. The conspirators were all ethnic Serbs but not Serbians.

Gavrilio Princip who fired the shots was from Bosnia and if I remember correctly the rest were from Montenegro.

- Tommi

[RobVarak]

The diplomatic/political origins of the war are too complex to simply blame the English. For an in depth examination of the 19th century roots of the conflict, as well as a detailed description of the events leading up to the war, see Kissinger's DIPLOMACY.

It's sort of a dry read (it is Hank, after all ), but well worth it for those interested in the history of diplomacy. Beware that it covers much more than simply the origins of the First World War.

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

Rob Varak

Editor

Site on Sound: The Web's Premier Site For Musical Discussion www.siteonsound.com

[This message has been edited by RobVarak (edited 03-30-2000).]

[bazooka10165]

I went back the bookstore to check the figures I reported at the outset of this post. The stats were for fatalities only(not all casualties). So, if his figure is correct (420,000 British fatalities at the Somme), then it appears that this far exceeds the total US battle fatalities in both World Wars combined (based on the figures provided by Jason). That just blows me away. I cannot believe that the soldiers did not mutiny/desert in droves in the face of such a slaughter.

The book looks like a tough one to slog through. Neutral Party - Is it at all readable?

Rob - Glad to see you survived your latest trip to Louisiana

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The beginning of WW I was a joint effort of leaders of Australo-Hungary, Germany, Russia, Britain, and France<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sure you meant "Austro-". As every Australian schoolchild knows, they didn't start the war, and they would have bloody well won it in a week and a half if the Pommie bastards had let them...

[This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 03-30-2000).]

[tss]

I'm sure you meant "Austro-". As every Australian schoolchild knows, they didn't start the war, and they would have bloody well won it in a week and a half if the Pommie bastards had let them..

I blame that error on the fact that I've been writing a user manual for ten hours. (And no, it's not the CM manual).

Well, at least it was more intelligible to most readers than if I had used 'Itävalta-Unkari' as the country was called in my native tongue.

- Tommi

[foxhole]

I allways heard at the battle of the Sommethe british general sent 60,000 men over the top into rows of machine guns.

Greg

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'd say that the book exaggerates there. The beginning of WW I was a joint effort of leaders of Australo-Hungary, Germany, Russia, Britain, and France, in approximately that order of responsibility.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with is except the order of responsibility. All the heads of state wanted to engage in the "Sport of Kings," and were just looking for an excuse. If it hadn't been Erzherzog Ferdinand it would have been something else.

[Neutral Party]

Hey Bazooka

The book is bit like the curate's egg - "good in parts".

There were definitely bits that I found very dull and skipped over, such as some of the economic analyses, graphs etc.,

Other bits were very good. The chapter on why men fought discusses the question you raise about why didn't they all mutiny or desert. The answer includes some of the things you would expect - cameraderie, esprit de corps etc., but he also focuses on other factors like the perception that one's own chances of survival were acceptable, the actual enjoyment of the war experience and an almost pornographic fascination with death. His discussion of the act of surrendering is also very good.

The bits on the origins of the war are pretty controversial as described above. If he posted this stuff on usenet I think you would call it troll-bait. However as nothing gives an academic such a boner as a response (any response) let him have his "happy time".

For a sample go to

http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/boo ksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=4CRC3IC32U&mscssid=R4R01CGD06SR2GS8001PQU6AVEU22HBF&srefer=&isbn=0465057128

where you can read a bit of a chapter.

If I was to hazard a guess I would say that 25% of this forum would like it and 75% would hate it. However these figures could be wrong by somewhere between 25 and 75%

Joe

[This message has been edited by Neutral Party (edited 03-30-2000).]

[ARCHANGEL]

Hey Bazooka,

I would also suggest THE GUNS OF AUGUST for an examination of how the war started...it scares the hell out one to see (and now know) how easily and stupidly these things can get going.

TGOA is by Barbara Tuchman (sp?)...

Archangel

[bazooka10165]

Thanks for the tip Joe. BTW - based on your post (and if I recall correctly, some of your prior posts), here's a site you might enjoy. www.psn.net/~xocxoc/math/glossary.htm

Archangel - I'll see if I can find it on Amazon

[This message has been edited by bazooka10165 (edited 03-30-2000).]

[ARCHANGEL]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tss:

Regarding innocent victims, TSS, how is it that Serbia was "innocent"?

Well, as far as I know the Serbian government didn't have anything to do with the assasination of Ferdinand. The conspirators were all ethnic Serbs but not Serbians.

Gavrilio Princip who fired the shots was from Bosnia and if I remember correctly the rest were from Montenegro.

- Tommi<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right you are ...I didn't understand the context in which you were writing ...agreed.

Thanks,

Archangel

[Guest mch]

IIRC the "conspirators" behind the start

of WWI were the Austro-Hungarians.(However,

their intent was NOT to start WWI,but reign

in the Serb population)Basically,they sent Franz Ferdinand to Serbia on Serb National Day for a "Parade"(talk about open provocation...)Franz was actually considered

a "Liberal"concerning the Serbs..Hardly a

hated target...Of course,he was shot....

The A/H sent a 10 point "Ultimatum"to the Serbs,knowing they couldn't comply with it

(for fear of being ousted by their own people)....

The Serbs asked for help,the A/H asked for help.the European powers jumped in,and...

WWI!(England being somewhat of a wild-card.

the central powers felt quite certain England

would be on THEIR side...

giving birth to the popular soldier's song..

french and russian,they matter not,

a blow for a blow,a shot for a shot

we love them not,we hate them not,

we hold the vistula Vosges-gate,

we have but one and only hate,

ENGLAND!...)

Whew....Typin' up a storm!

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

It is no disgrace to be defeated...It is a disgrace to be surprised.

-attr.to Fredrick the Great-

[This message has been edited by mch (edited 03-30-2000).]

[Major Tom]

Germany and the Central Powers got a bad rap for causing the Great War of 1914. EVERYONE wanted war, politicians and civilians alike. They thought it would be much like the Franco-Prussian war, not like the Crimean war. Blaming an individual action, group of people, or nation is ignoring the big picture. Leaders have been assasinated before, by other nationals, but, the incidents rarely start wars. It was just a sequence of inevitable events. If it wasn't in Austria-Hungary, it would have been some where else.

The Somme, well, "blame" for the action on the Somme is just like blame for the starter of WWI. By 1916 NO other nation was able to crack the stalemate on the Western Front. Germany couldn't at Verdun, and ended up with as many casualties as the French. In fact, German casualties EXCELLED that of British and French casualties COMBINED during the battle of the Somme. The plan called for a main French attack supported by the British. Verdun GREATLY reduced the French contribution. But, the British were still forced to act in order to relieve pressure off the French at Verdun. In fact, the Somme was the deathbattle of the professional German Army. Also, it relieved pressure on the French at Verdun, one of the reasons for the turn of events against the Germans there. One shouldn't see it as a defeat, but, as a VERY costly victory.

[Guest Zulu1]

The figures quoted above jive with what I've seen.

The BEF (British Expeditionary Force) incurred 58,000 casualties on the first day of which about 1/3 were killed. This was the worst day in the history of the British Army. Overall at the Somme casualties were:

British - 420,000

French - 200,000

Germans - 500,000

All for a gain of 12 km.

As a comparion at Stalingrad in about the same length of time:

Germans - 150,000 killed and 90,000 taken prisioner.

Russians - 500,000 killed.

So Stalingrad was a worse meatgrinder than the Somme.

American technology and industrial might and Russian blood won WWII. The Russians suffered some 25,000,000 deaths! Imagine the entire population of Canada gone.

[This message has been edited by Zulu1 (edited 03-31-2000).]

[Major Tom]

There are more than 25 000 people in Canada

Actually, the figures you quote for the Stalingrad operation don't count the 3rd and 4th Rumanian and the 8th Italian armies which were also virtually destroyed @ Stalingrad. One of my friends is of Rumanian descent, he is 23, and he can tell me horror stories about his ancestors on the Eastern front.

I have never found a single casualty number that correlates in ALL sources of books. Give or take even 100 000 casualties in most WWI battles.

It is easy to point out the mistakes of the past. The harder task is to understand that what they did was all that they knew how to do. Before this time there weren't million man armies facing another million man army in entrenched positions. There hasn't been a major war in Europe in almost 100 years, you can't expect every general to become immediately innovative. NO General on either side of the war had any way to effectively break the stalemate on the Western Front other than through attrition. There still is no solution.

[tss]

Zulu1 wrote:

As a comparion at Stalingrad in about the same length of time:

Germans - 150,000 killed and 90,000 taken prisioner.

Russians - 500,000 killed.

So Stalingrad was a worse meatgrinder than the Somme.

Like others have pointed out, Romanian and Italian casualties are missing from the list. I don't know how large they were, but quite heavy in any case.

Additionally, the Soviet casualty figure includes also the retreat from Donbas area. "Soviet Losses ..." gives total number of 478741 Soviet KIA and MIA in time period 17 July 42 -- 2 February 43. I don't know what period the German losses cover.

[Speedy]

Some more figures here with regard to WW1.

Country -- Total Casualties -- Total Embarkations -- Percentage

British Isles -- 2,535,424 -- 5,000,000 -- 50.71

Canada -- 210,100 -- 422,405 -- 49.74

Australia -- 215,585 -- 331,781 -- 64.98

New Zealand -- 58,526 -- 98,950 -- 59.01

India(native) -- 140,015 -- 1,096,013 -- 12.77

[This message has been edited by Speedy (edited 03-31-2000).]

[scoop88]

The British general responsible for the tragedy of the Somme was Haig. Just read a collection of essays on WWI and there was a chapter about Haig called "History's Worst General." According to the essay he owed his career to his court connections, good looks and impeccable dress. Other than that he had no qualfications as a general and he and the British leadership never got within miles of the front lines. Incredibly the guy was left in command for a long time and was never held responsible during or after the war for his inept generalship.

FYI, if you want to pursue the causes of the war, they are very complex. "Guns of August" is good for the military operations of August 1914 but very simplistic in its treatment of the causes of the war. The author tends to just blame the Kaiser and the system of alliances for everything.

The causes go much deeper than that. If you have the time and the inclination their is a two-volume treatment called "Origins of the Great War" by Sidney Fay. It was published in the late 1920s and runs about 1,200 pages total. It traces the causes back to the mid-1800s and works forward to 1914.