Lest we forget...
Discussion
Also read this today.
Thank you very much for posting.
It reminds me of a school visit to Holland as a child 44 years ago.
We visited Tyne Cot Cemetery.
I remember my emotions on seeing all of the names but also the reactions of all my 11 to 16 year old school mates.
My Wife voiced a wish to visit one of the cemeteries which I will organize for next year.
Its a very sobering week after reading again the Aberfan articles.
Thank you very much for posting.
It reminds me of a school visit to Holland as a child 44 years ago.
We visited Tyne Cot Cemetery.
I remember my emotions on seeing all of the names but also the reactions of all my 11 to 16 year old school mates.
My Wife voiced a wish to visit one of the cemeteries which I will organize for next year.
Its a very sobering week after reading again the Aberfan articles.
Jasandjules said:
IIRC another issue was the British Generals had time limits - 3 mins to walk over, 2 mins to take objective, so at 6 mins the next barrage would take place. Therefore, any small delay (or being shot at) meant the barrage finished long before the troops arrived, giving the Germans time to deploy.
One of the French generals as I understand it said "f*ck that" and got his people on the ground to inform him when they had advanced, then the artillery started up. They advanced further and with fewer casualties due to the flexibility.
So many errors, so many thousands of young men died because of them. Such a waste.
That is absolutely true. I will be posting a YouTube that discusses the subject in detail.One of the French generals as I understand it said "f*ck that" and got his people on the ground to inform him when they had advanced, then the artillery started up. They advanced further and with fewer casualties due to the flexibility.
So many errors, so many thousands of young men died because of them. Such a waste.
The opposite also happened. In a couple of cases where the allies made rapid progress, they got shelled by their own side.
Having said that, the French general must have been lucky with the terrain, because the only means of communication was "runners". Runners were prone to getting shot.
last weekend some of my unit paraded for the daily remembrance service at the Thiepval memorial.
I feel privileged to have been a small part of keeping the memory alive of what these men did and what they sacrificed.
We visited many of the places mentioned so far in this thread; the ones that stand out the most for me were the sunken lane which remains largely unchanged since the war and you can climb up the very same bank that the soldiers did moments before they were cut down by machine gun fire, high wood which is an utterly foreboding and unnerving place to be near as it has never been properly cleared and as such still contains the remains of an estimated 10,000 soldiers and Delville wood which is now a place of incredible beauty and tranquillity that belies the total carnage that befell it 100 years ago.
I feel privileged to have been a small part of keeping the memory alive of what these men did and what they sacrificed.
We visited many of the places mentioned so far in this thread; the ones that stand out the most for me were the sunken lane which remains largely unchanged since the war and you can climb up the very same bank that the soldiers did moments before they were cut down by machine gun fire, high wood which is an utterly foreboding and unnerving place to be near as it has never been properly cleared and as such still contains the remains of an estimated 10,000 soldiers and Delville wood which is now a place of incredible beauty and tranquillity that belies the total carnage that befell it 100 years ago.
deadtom said:
last weekend some of my unit paraded for the daily remembrance service at the Thiepval memorial.
I feel privileged to have been a small part of keeping the memory alive of what these men did and what they sacrificed.
We visited many of the places mentioned so far in this thread; the ones that stand out the most for me were the sunken lane which remains largely unchanged since the war and you can climb up the very same bank that the soldiers did moments before they were cut down by machine gun fire, high wood which is an utterly foreboding and unnerving place to be near as it has never been properly cleared and as such still contains the remains of an estimated 10,000 soldiers and Delville wood which is now a place of incredible beauty and tranquillity that belies the total carnage that befell it 100 years ago.
Sunken Lane seems to have a huge impact on everyone who visits. I think the reason is that it is clearly unchanged since the 1st July 1916. You can feel what happened.I feel privileged to have been a small part of keeping the memory alive of what these men did and what they sacrificed.
We visited many of the places mentioned so far in this thread; the ones that stand out the most for me were the sunken lane which remains largely unchanged since the war and you can climb up the very same bank that the soldiers did moments before they were cut down by machine gun fire, high wood which is an utterly foreboding and unnerving place to be near as it has never been properly cleared and as such still contains the remains of an estimated 10,000 soldiers and Delville wood which is now a place of incredible beauty and tranquillity that belies the total carnage that befell it 100 years ago.
If you had shown me that photo of Delville wood a few weeks ago, all I would have seen was a nice photo of bluebells in the forest.
We were at Thiepval for the service on 24th Sept. It was very touching.
There's a very interesting site here - http://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=14&lat=50... - which overlays various maps of the trenches over modern satellite imagery.
My 2p
A very thought provoking thread, thank you for posting. I have been to the Somme battlefield, & seen all the cemetaries, the shrapnel, bullets, gas shells, buildings debris that still litters the ground, & bone, you cannot go there without making a connection with the people who fought there, even with the distance of generations. I live a short distance from the Royal Victoria hospital remains, & have visited their cemetary, which has soldiers from the Empire, Belgian & German buried there. This hospital was also the first in the world to have a ward dedicated to 'shell shock' cases.
Whilst a human tragedy the Somme battle was unlikely to have turned out any other way. War is by definition, a horror, where people try & do the best they can, with ever changing technology, social situations, & unbelievably difficult circumstances. I never view that the soldiers who died, did so for nothing on July 1st 1916.
The reasons as below.
- BUILD UP. The British/Empire army in 1916 on the Somme had not had time to be trained properly. In 1914, the Army was made up of about 160,000 men, who with an Empire to man, constituted little more than a (highly professional, Volunteer) police force. 30% of Britains GDP went on the Navy, which meant that the Army was the poor relation, & did not have enough Artillery, especially heavy type, unlike the French & Germans, who had put far more into their Armies.
- NO OPTION. The British Commander Haig did not want to attack on the Somme, or in July 1916. This was the strongest part of the German line, the troops werent really ready, & he didnt have enough heavy artillery to destroy the dugouts. He wanted to attack in Flanders, but due to the Battle of Verdun, the French (who had shouldered the burden of the war until then) demanded the British attack. The Somme was picked as it was where the Allied Armies joined. Haig HAD TO ATTACK as the Germans would only stay there otherwise.The Germans would impose a very harsh Peace Treaty if they were still on French soil otherwise (they did this to the Russians in 1917). The soldiers graves on the Somme are a testimony to this German policy.
- THE WAR. It was a 'new' type, where modern industrial might/production had taken over from the individual courage of the soldier. With the means at the time (Artillery & machine guns), war favoured the defender. The British High Command knew this, but lulled into the impressive sights of the barrage on the German lines, thought the wired would be destroyed, along with the dugouts. They did know the wire hadnt been destroyed, but ordered to help the French, Haig had no option than to attack on July 1st 1916. What the British should have done, like the French, was target the individual strongpoints until hit/destroyed (like the French did, which is why they did a lot better on July 1st), rather than just 'throwing' as much as they could at the German lines.
- COMMAND/PLANNING. The Somme was not a case of 'Lions led by Donkeys'. British plans were meticulous, down to carrying different shape metal discs on the soldiers backs, so that the Airforce could see where the troops had got to. We have to remember the limited communications of the day, & that once started, offensives have a momentum of their own, which is why WW1 started, once the French & Germans mobilised, they couldnt just 'stop' everything. The biggest issue was that the British High Command had still not 'learnt' everything about modern warfare, but it was a process that all Armies/Commands go through. The Somme was the first battle in Empire history with this amount of troops/complexity. Unfortunately, the common soldier, in ever war, has to pay for this 'learning curve' with his blood/life.
- IF NO SOMME ATTACK? If the British/Empire hadnt attacked, the French may have lost the Battle of Verdun. The Germans considered themselves victorious, & better than other countries. They had their best army in the field in 1916, & had 2 years to fortify the Somme - & THEY STILL LOST. The Somme was a DEFEAT for the Germans, & something they hadnt experienced properly before, they believed they would win until the Somme. The Somme showed them that the Allies had a bigger/better Industrial base, & that for the first time, they could/would lose.
- GERMAN TACTICS werent good either. They could machine gun the Allied troops & inflict massive losses, BUT, not wanting to retreat (as they were the 'victors' on enemy soil), when pushed out of main defence lines into shallow trenches, they packed them out with troops, losing thousands to Artilley fire. If they had slowly retreated/given ground, the difference in losses would have been much greater, but they were too proud/stubborn.
- WHAT IF? - The biggest thing about the Somme battle on the 1st day was if a) the troops had ditched their equipment & ran across the lines like the successful Ulster/Irish Division, & b) Attacking earlier after the mines were blown. There could have been more success/less losses, but this would have slowly got worse as the Allied Artillery was outrun. Losses would have mounted, although we can only hope not as much as historically. We have to remember though the troops werent trained that well (incl the Officers), which is why they only aimed for the few gaps in the wire, they hadnt been trained in infiltration tactics. It was easier to control large bodies of men who were closer together. This sadly made better targets.
- OUTCOME a) Despite the human tragedy/losses, the Somme battle was an Allied VICTORY, not only were the Germans pushed back from an area they were determined to hold (not just in the immediate area, but in 1917 they retreated further back to the Hindenburg line, as they couldnt hold further forward, despite them wanting to), they had lost a lot of their best men (incl NCO's & Officers). Their High Command had a massive crisis of confidence, & realised the Allies had the means to beat them. The Somme battle also gave the British/Empire Army it's first 'modern' battle, where organisation & tactics were learned with regard to Infantry/Tanks/Artillery/Aircraft to become an 'all arms' force. By the end of 1916 the British/Empire Army was well on it's way to becoming as good/better as the other European Armies.
b) Although the British/Empire Army was learning, 'ATTRITION was the only option on the battlefield, to force the Germans to retreat, by weakening their forces so much they had to. Every grave is a sad testiment to this. The Germans were prepared to do anything to win (Gas etc), & the only reason they didnt firebomb London (German WW2 bombs in the Blitz used basically the WW1 design), was that they thought the Allies would be able to do more damage. The Allies could have tried just a blockade, but that was politically unacceptable, took too much time, & the Germans might have won by then, especially in Russia.
- FOOTNOTE. German crosses in Cemetaries are 'Black' in colour, as the Allies decreed it was the colour of guilt, as the Germans has started the war, & caused all the suffering/damage.
I've rambled on a bit, sorry, but hope it gives readers a better idea of the situation on July 1st 1916.
Lest we Forget.
A very thought provoking thread, thank you for posting. I have been to the Somme battlefield, & seen all the cemetaries, the shrapnel, bullets, gas shells, buildings debris that still litters the ground, & bone, you cannot go there without making a connection with the people who fought there, even with the distance of generations. I live a short distance from the Royal Victoria hospital remains, & have visited their cemetary, which has soldiers from the Empire, Belgian & German buried there. This hospital was also the first in the world to have a ward dedicated to 'shell shock' cases.
Whilst a human tragedy the Somme battle was unlikely to have turned out any other way. War is by definition, a horror, where people try & do the best they can, with ever changing technology, social situations, & unbelievably difficult circumstances. I never view that the soldiers who died, did so for nothing on July 1st 1916.
The reasons as below.
- BUILD UP. The British/Empire army in 1916 on the Somme had not had time to be trained properly. In 1914, the Army was made up of about 160,000 men, who with an Empire to man, constituted little more than a (highly professional, Volunteer) police force. 30% of Britains GDP went on the Navy, which meant that the Army was the poor relation, & did not have enough Artillery, especially heavy type, unlike the French & Germans, who had put far more into their Armies.
- NO OPTION. The British Commander Haig did not want to attack on the Somme, or in July 1916. This was the strongest part of the German line, the troops werent really ready, & he didnt have enough heavy artillery to destroy the dugouts. He wanted to attack in Flanders, but due to the Battle of Verdun, the French (who had shouldered the burden of the war until then) demanded the British attack. The Somme was picked as it was where the Allied Armies joined. Haig HAD TO ATTACK as the Germans would only stay there otherwise.The Germans would impose a very harsh Peace Treaty if they were still on French soil otherwise (they did this to the Russians in 1917). The soldiers graves on the Somme are a testimony to this German policy.
- THE WAR. It was a 'new' type, where modern industrial might/production had taken over from the individual courage of the soldier. With the means at the time (Artillery & machine guns), war favoured the defender. The British High Command knew this, but lulled into the impressive sights of the barrage on the German lines, thought the wired would be destroyed, along with the dugouts. They did know the wire hadnt been destroyed, but ordered to help the French, Haig had no option than to attack on July 1st 1916. What the British should have done, like the French, was target the individual strongpoints until hit/destroyed (like the French did, which is why they did a lot better on July 1st), rather than just 'throwing' as much as they could at the German lines.
- COMMAND/PLANNING. The Somme was not a case of 'Lions led by Donkeys'. British plans were meticulous, down to carrying different shape metal discs on the soldiers backs, so that the Airforce could see where the troops had got to. We have to remember the limited communications of the day, & that once started, offensives have a momentum of their own, which is why WW1 started, once the French & Germans mobilised, they couldnt just 'stop' everything. The biggest issue was that the British High Command had still not 'learnt' everything about modern warfare, but it was a process that all Armies/Commands go through. The Somme was the first battle in Empire history with this amount of troops/complexity. Unfortunately, the common soldier, in ever war, has to pay for this 'learning curve' with his blood/life.
- IF NO SOMME ATTACK? If the British/Empire hadnt attacked, the French may have lost the Battle of Verdun. The Germans considered themselves victorious, & better than other countries. They had their best army in the field in 1916, & had 2 years to fortify the Somme - & THEY STILL LOST. The Somme was a DEFEAT for the Germans, & something they hadnt experienced properly before, they believed they would win until the Somme. The Somme showed them that the Allies had a bigger/better Industrial base, & that for the first time, they could/would lose.
- GERMAN TACTICS werent good either. They could machine gun the Allied troops & inflict massive losses, BUT, not wanting to retreat (as they were the 'victors' on enemy soil), when pushed out of main defence lines into shallow trenches, they packed them out with troops, losing thousands to Artilley fire. If they had slowly retreated/given ground, the difference in losses would have been much greater, but they were too proud/stubborn.
- WHAT IF? - The biggest thing about the Somme battle on the 1st day was if a) the troops had ditched their equipment & ran across the lines like the successful Ulster/Irish Division, & b) Attacking earlier after the mines were blown. There could have been more success/less losses, but this would have slowly got worse as the Allied Artillery was outrun. Losses would have mounted, although we can only hope not as much as historically. We have to remember though the troops werent trained that well (incl the Officers), which is why they only aimed for the few gaps in the wire, they hadnt been trained in infiltration tactics. It was easier to control large bodies of men who were closer together. This sadly made better targets.
- OUTCOME a) Despite the human tragedy/losses, the Somme battle was an Allied VICTORY, not only were the Germans pushed back from an area they were determined to hold (not just in the immediate area, but in 1917 they retreated further back to the Hindenburg line, as they couldnt hold further forward, despite them wanting to), they had lost a lot of their best men (incl NCO's & Officers). Their High Command had a massive crisis of confidence, & realised the Allies had the means to beat them. The Somme battle also gave the British/Empire Army it's first 'modern' battle, where organisation & tactics were learned with regard to Infantry/Tanks/Artillery/Aircraft to become an 'all arms' force. By the end of 1916 the British/Empire Army was well on it's way to becoming as good/better as the other European Armies.
b) Although the British/Empire Army was learning, 'ATTRITION was the only option on the battlefield, to force the Germans to retreat, by weakening their forces so much they had to. Every grave is a sad testiment to this. The Germans were prepared to do anything to win (Gas etc), & the only reason they didnt firebomb London (German WW2 bombs in the Blitz used basically the WW1 design), was that they thought the Allies would be able to do more damage. The Allies could have tried just a blockade, but that was politically unacceptable, took too much time, & the Germans might have won by then, especially in Russia.
- FOOTNOTE. German crosses in Cemetaries are 'Black' in colour, as the Allies decreed it was the colour of guilt, as the Germans has started the war, & caused all the suffering/damage.
I've rambled on a bit, sorry, but hope it gives readers a better idea of the situation on July 1st 1916.
Lest we Forget.
Evil Jack said:
I would like to recommend Dan Carlin's six part 'Blueprint for Armageddon' podcast for a fascinating, sobering and yes, depressing account of the First World War.
Actually one of the best podcasts I've ever listened to...
http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-...
I've listened to the first 10 minutes so far.Actually one of the best podcasts I've ever listened to...
http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-...
Very, very thought provoking. I shall definately listen to the rest.
Edited by don4l on Tuesday 25th October 23:06
A chap who clearly lost a relative has made some interesting films. In this video he takes some footage that was shot on 1st July 1916. He combines it with footage shot from exactly the same spot 100 years later.
It is 16 minutes long, and features some lovely music.
It features Sunken Lane, Hawthorn Ridge and Mametz wood. If you have forgotton about these then I would suggest that you search back through the thread for them. The video will mean so much more if you know what you are looking at. It will only take a couple of minutes for each place.
http://www.hellfirecorner.co.uk/9vcs.htm
It is 16 minutes long, and features some lovely music.
It features Sunken Lane, Hawthorn Ridge and Mametz wood. If you have forgotton about these then I would suggest that you search back through the thread for them. The video will mean so much more if you know what you are looking at. It will only take a couple of minutes for each place.
http://www.hellfirecorner.co.uk/9vcs.htm
MikeT66 said:
Just wanted to say - a very illuminating thread, don4l. Not sure if there are any more posts coming, but it's been brilliant to read of your experiences.
There are quite a few more posts coming.I didn't think it out properly at the beginning, and the posts came in a bit of a random order.
I'm currently researching a freind's grandfather (who survived). However, it appears that most of his records were destroyed when the Germans dropped a bomb on the repositry in 1940. It is taking a bit of time.
In the meantime, I have found some good Youtubes.
This one is a "Time Team" special.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usncav3TcPo
I think that they did a good job. It is quite amazing what is still in the ground. Our tour guide told us that whenever they build a new house around Ypres, they find bones as they dig the foundations.
I thought that he might be exaggerating. I don't think that he was.
ChemicalChaos said:
Not to hijack the thread, but do you know where people normally sell poppies in Liverpool? I have yet again this year failed to spot anyone on the campus area selling them
Most of the petrol stations around here sell them.Post offices too.
Not in a million years could anyone interpret your question as a thread hijack.
12. The Chemists War.
WW1 is sometimes called The Chemists War because of the use of chemical weapons.
Unfortunately, there is very little recorded information out there, so you must not take any of the following information as 100% fact. All of it is only accurate to the best of my ability. The "fog of war" is incredibly thick on this subject.
On the 22nd April 1915 the Germans used chlorine gas against Algerian soldiers near Ypres. The Algerians immediately fled. The Germans didn't know what the result of their attack would be and failed to take the vacated trenches.
The Canadian 1st division filled the gaps before the Germans could take possession. The Canadians were able to make improvised gas masks by wearing urine soaked handkerchiefs over their faces. The urine neutralised the chlorine.
Chlorine was a nasty gas. It caused great irritation to the eyes, throat, tongue and lungs. It caused the lungs to fill with liquid which resulted in the victims drowning to death. Some victims were axphiated due to swelling in the throat. However, you needed to get a fairly high dose to be mortally wounded. Most people actually recovered, although many had respiratory problems for the rest of their lives.
This first gas attack used gas cylinders that simply had their valves opened during an easterly wind. Later attacks would use artillery shells.
One key component of any poison gas was that it had to be heavier than air.
For more information on the effects of chlorine gas see here:-
http://www.vlib.us/medical/gaswar/chlorine.htm
The British developed Chlorine as a weapon five months later. I haven't found much information about the British use of gas, but as the prevailing winds were south-westerley, I suspect that the Germans came to regret the fact that they introduced it.
The next gas that was introduced was Phosgene. This was a more potent, but slower acting, gas than Chlorine. It was also heavier, so it lingered in the trenches a bit longer.
Phosgene did not have a strong smell. It smelt a bit like mouldy hay. This meant that it was much more difficult to detect. Also, whilst Chlorine caused instant coughing, Phosgene often had no immediate effects. Sometimes it took 24 hours before it was obvious that you had been poisoned.
It was also much more potent. The moving air dispersed these gasses fairly quickly, and Chlorine quickly became quite safe. However, Phosgene was poisinous at a concentration of 1/8th that of chlorine. When you combine that with the fact that it was difficult to see or smell, it was much more deadly. Death would often occur about 48 hours after exposure, when the lungs stopped working.
Both Chlorine and Phosgene could be rendered fairly useless by the use of gas masks.
This photo depicts the effect of gas. The soldiers eyes have become so sensitised to light that they have had to cover them. They are walking to the dressing station. I think that it depicts the effects of mustard gas.
Mustard gas was first used by the Germans in July 1917. It was different to the other gasses in that you did not need to inhale it for it to be effective. It also attacked the skin. This meant that it was very difficult to protect soldiers against the gas.
Mustard gas wasn't really a gas at all. It was a liquid that slowly evaporated over several days. So, if it got onto your clothing, it could spend several days attacking you before you knew that you had a problem. In the meantime, you might have come into contact with other people who would become infected.
Beause it was a liquid, it would persist for many days, even weeks. It was often used to deny the enemy access to part of their territory.
It caused blistering, and if these blisters became infected, then death could easily follow. They did not have access to antibiotics.
If the Mustard gas was inhaled, then blisters would also form in the lungs.
This would often lead to death.
However, only about 1% of victims actually died. Most people made a full recovery.
The big effect of gas was to lower morale. It wasn't really used to capture territory.
As far as I can tell 90,000 deaths occurred due to gas. However, the true figure might be as low as 9,000. As I said at the top of this post, the fog of war on this subject is impenetrable. The records do not simply seem to exist.
I've seen many films about the first and second world wars, and they all misrepresent what actually happened.
This little clip accurately demonstrates the effect of heavy gas.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV5Wq0vMZnw
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff