Casualty Figures: Scotland

[crickhollow]

So you are adamant that Gallipoli is comparable to the Western Front as a major theatre of war? Does your guru give any figures for resources, troops, casualties?

Actually I find the term 'theatre of war' a rather curious one, no matter if major (Western Front) or minor (Gallipoli, Salonika,Palestine/Iraq, East Africa etc.).

[phil andrade]

Is there any one out there who's really prepared to insist that Gallipoli was a minor theatre of war ?

Small compared with the Western front, of course : but still a major theatre, surely ?

Phil (PJA)

[George Armstrong Custer]

What a fascinating thread this is turning into - a classic of the genre if ever I saw one.

George

[Steven Broomfield]

To be honest, Phil, yes, I would.

The numbers of men involved were pretty small compared to the millions elsewhere. Casualties, although high in relation to the numbers involved, were small in relation to the millions elsewhere.

Strategically it was never better than a sideshow, consuming valuable resources better used elsewhere.

Yes, it was ghastly, and yes, many men died, but in the general scope of a World War consuming millions of lives, it was really prety unimportant.

[truthergw]

There is no mystery here. The major theatre of any war is the one where the main armies of the combatants are engaged. For the Great War that was the Western Front for Germany, France and Britain and the Eastern Front for Germany and Russia. That is why it was a two front war for Germany. Note that it was not a many front war, the rest were sideshows.

[phil andrade]

Not the major theatre, obviously, Tom, but I would have thought that it should be dignified with the category of a major theatre.

Phil (PJA)

[truthergw]

Not at all. Whether we look at numbers engaged or the importance to the outcome of the war, Gallipoli was never more than a sideshow. The fact that closing it down and evacuating our forces had almost no effect on the general progress of the war demonstrates that fully.

[phil andrade]

Perhaps the Turkish People would disagree with you.... and accordng to Niall Ferguson their death rate in the Great War exceeded that of Scotland, and of every other belligerent too, excepting Serbia.

Phil (PJA)

[crickhollow]

There is no mystery here. The major theatre of any war is the one where the main armies of the combatants are engaged. For the Great War that was the Western Front for Germany, France and Britain and the Eastern Front for Germany and Russia. That is why it was a two front war for Germany. Note that it was not a many front war, the rest were sideshows.

This little detour on the thread makes me reflect that the term 'theatre of war ' was little used to describe WW2 campaigns- true? There was the Eastern or Russian Front, the African Campaign, the Invasion of Italy, Normandy Invasion etc. but I can't think of a 'theatre of war'.

Which leads me to suggest that the term 'theatre of war' may be inappropriate and misleading for WW1. Clearly trench warfare created a 'Western Front' (actually only 'Western' for Germany?!) and there was an Eastern Front (again for Germany- 'Western' for Russia?!).

To me, the term 'Theatre of War' is redolent of 19thC campaigns and battles - when the style of battle and uniforms perhaps suggested some sort of dramatic 'theatre'.

Christopher

[MikeMeech]

All

I don't see why the term 'Theatre of War' would cause any problems, it is a standard term used both in history books and in 'military/political speak'. This is not only by English speakers but others eg. the Soviet Union during the Cold War used the term TVD (original in cyrillic) this was translated as TMO - Theatre of Military Operations.

It is probably easier to see the reason in the Second World War with Western and Eastern European Theatres and the Mediterranean and Pacific Theatres for instance. It does not really matter about the 'size' it would cover a geographical area and tends to relate to its own command structure. The political/military authorities in their homelands have to decide how to allocate the national resources to the particular 'Theatres' which may relate to their individual 'importance' or the 'relative risk' to the national strategy at the time. This would apply to the Great War as well.

Mike

[Guest]

A few thoughts - The debate over what was a major theatre of war surely lies in one's definition and therefore will always remain highly subjective. Many (most?) Australians would argue that Gallipoli was a major theatre, yet the AIF incurred nearly 7 times as many casualties in France and Flanders as they did in the Dardanelles. To them it was a major campaign, not because of the absolute numbers, but because it was Australia's baptism of fire.

The trusty "Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire During the Great War 1914-1920" published by HMSO for the War Office (880 pages) has a chapter called "Military Effort of the British Empire in the Great War" (pages 739) - Section 1 covers the British Military Contribution During the War. It measures the employment of personnel in a number of theatres in a number of different ways. If one looked at the simplistic Max Strength or Total Employed for France & Flanders v Dardanelles, the ratios are 15 times and 11 times respectively. Pretty hefty figures. The tables in this section also introduce a more complex measure for "employment of personnel" - the total number "Officer days" and total number of "Other Ranks days" (which can be combined to make a total man-days). This introduces the concept of how many men served and how long each man served in the theatre and combines the two. I think this is a more meaningful way of measuring the commitment of men to a theatre. On this measure the British committed 72 times as many 'man-days' to France and Flanders as the Dardanelles, but 'only' 5 times as many as Egypt & Palestine. These numbers surprised me. A lot.

If we start to look at the comparative total casualty figures, the British lost 22 times as many men in France & Flanders as in the Dardanelles (despite committing 72 times as many man-days) and 42 times as many as Egypt & Palestine.

If we chose to look at casualties / total man-days as more meaningful measure of commitment, the Dardanelles starts to look like a hard fought campaign. The ratios are 0.13% for France and Flanders and 0.42% for the Dardanelles. The fact that the Dardanelles was short and failed should not necessarily confine it to a side show in my view. On this measure it was 3 times as more costly.

It all depends on how we choose to measure 'major'. If it is by absolute numbers committed, or absolute casualties, then nothing compares to F&F - This theatre dwarfed everything else; 66% of total man days were committed to F&F and 88% of all British casualties were in F&F...however if casualty rates (measured as a total casulaties /total man days committed to the theatre) are considered, the picture looks very different. The historiography of WWI is full of accounts of how the Gallipoli veterans were deeply offended by the Western Front men calling the Dardanelles a 'Side show'. Capt Wedgwood Benn' s biography of his WWI service is called "In the Side Shows" and I suspect it is meant with more than a touch of irony.

I know this is highly subjective and we will all choose our own methodologies to measure what is 'major' and what is 'minor'. For the record I am not suggesting that my approach is the 'right' approach, it is just one of many approaches one could take.

All stats are from "Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire During the Great War 1914-1920"

Any mistakes are mine . Regards MG.

P.S. I am not a fan of Ferguson. I have heard him speak at many banking seminars and his research in this area is always very thin by the standards of the industry in my view. Not much depth. He did however give a very interesting lecture immediately before the global financial crisis in 2007 titled "is the World a Riskier Place'. His presentation showed what the (bond) markets did in the weeks and days before the outbreak of WWI. They gave no indication of the impending war.

[phil andrade]

Without a degree of subjectivity, this forum would be a bit of a bore , wouldn't it ?

What's a flabber for, if it can't be gasted ?

Here's an interesting quote, which I think reflects as much on the subjective interpretations of the Great War as it does on the perception of Scotland's role in it.

How strange but true it is that certain characteristics of peoples always show up clearly in war. The Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders bubbled over with confidence - they were fearless but sadly lacking in discipline. The French - volatile - but so undisciplined and always dirty. The Italians - a complete wash-out. The Germans - disciplined to a degree - but like the Curate's Egg, good and bad in parts. The English - phlegmatic but never know when they are beaten. The Scotch - dour and determined - the only troops who loved using the bayonet. The best fighting troops in the world and the most feared at close quarters.

This was the statement of Sergeant David Layton, MM, a professional English soldier. The passage comes from Alexander McKee's Vimy Ridge , published in 1966.

Why refer to "Scotch", rather than "Scots" ?

I have read rather less flattering depictions of the Scots...that they would fight anybody if they had a drink inside them, and were famed for running like Hell in both directions. But I reckon the opinion of our decorated English sergeant holds wide sway. In the American Civil War, soldiers with Scottish provenance were supposed to exhibit a remarkable zeal for combat.

If the figures for Scotland's war dead were as dramatically higher than the norm as Ferguson states, I would be interested to find out whether there was a "Highland" and "Lowland" differential.

Phil (PJA)

[Guest]

The Scotch - dour and determined - the only troops who loved using the bayonet. The best fighting troops in the world and the most feared at close quarters.

Clearly he had never seen the Gurkhas fight at close quarters.

[phil andrade]

The French make the same claims for the Senegalese soldiers as British people like to make for the Gurkhas.

And here we have another example of claims for excesive death rates : the politically correct thinking of some commentators tends to emphasise the notion that black troops were exposed to more than their fair share of lethal combat, with death rates that reflect this. It's been claimed that this happened to those Senegalese soldiers, just as it is routine to insist that black soldiers in the American Civil War were indecently exploited.

Well might we ask ourselves whether the same syndrome applies in our discussion about the Scottish experience in the Great War.

Phil (PJA)

[crickhollow]

Maybe time to draw a line on this discussion trying to analyse and interpret fatalities associated with particular British Regiments / Divisions.

It is clear that the various statistics on casualties for 1914-1918 are misleading and not readily comparable. It must be true that not all fatalities reflect individual or group bravery. Bad luck, incompetence (local and from levels above), tiredness, poor training, inadequate resource to cope with overwhelming forces and just being in the wrong place and the wrong time all play a part.

However despite the above factors, there is some (tentative) evidence that certain groups in British Army had a more consistently distinguished record that others. The reason for this is always going to be subject to controversy and debate which is one of the reasons the Great War is so interesting!

Thank you all

Christopher

[rghya]

Sorry to butt in, but………….

Having only tripped over this thread and with just a cursory glance at the last few comments I find myself overwhelmed with the sense that few of those participating have actually experienced a close quarter engagement and I very much doubt whether the lads at Gallipoli gave a fiddlers toss what we may think a hundred years on but things would have felt rather "major" to them at the time.

I will humbly and respectfully withdraw now………….

[dycer]

GY,

Having "had" two Scots Uncles,killed in WW1,may offer an opinion and nothing more

The first one,chose,in 1915,to stick his head above the parapet,on wakening,with obvious sniping consequences.

The second one,in 1918,I am unsure as to whether,"He got up close and personal" with his killer.But as a Machine-Gunner,I doubt it,unless a Lewis Gun had a bayonet,on its "end" ?

George