"The Somme" Heroism and Horror in ww1

[hazelclark]

Haven't seen mention of this book on the Forum so in that I have just read it , I thought I would offer my 2 cents worth. Having thoroughly enjoyed Gilbert's general history of the First War, I was rather disappointed with "The Somme". It seemed to be somewhat lightweight and his use of anecdotes seemed to be almost out of context in places as though he had put the book together from paragraphs parachuted in from some other book. He is a very prolific writer and I wonder if possibly his publishers wanted a book pronto. His general history was the first I had read, and it really got me interested in the war. Maybe my reading since has changed my taste, but this book did not work for me. The only thing about it I liked was the poetry which he seems to use a lot in his books. I was actually glad to finish it. Fortunately, I had borrowed it from the library and hadn't purchased it. I learned my lesson from Mosier.

Hazel C.

[Jim_Grundy]

I agree with you, Hazel.

For my money, the best is Peter Hart's "Somme". There's a lot around but this gets my vote.

[Ken Lees]

I felt the same when I started to read it. It seemed like a re-hash of other people's work and offered nothing new. Fortunately, I didn't pay full price for it.

[Marilyne]

As we are on the Somme, stay also away from Alain Denizot's account of the Somme. He manages to be even duller as my history teacher at RMA (not the one drinking a Duvel at his last lesson, the other) , to mix up names and units and also to miw up timings in the worst possible way. Managed to read until page 99 and gave up. even threw the notes i'd taken away!!

un lecteur avertit en vaut deux ...

[wbroun]

I find myself with mixed feelings about this book. I admire and enjoy the research tremendously, and find so many sections of it gripping, but I also feel unpersuaded by what I see as Peter Hart's efforts to "rehabilitate" the reputation of Haig. There's a fatalistic attitude about this book, and a kind of revulsion towards any sort of broader historical perspective. Sorry, but I still regard Haig as a butcher. The first day of the Somme wasn't inevitable. It didn't have to happen that way. Communication problems or not, Haig should have had a better idea what was happening. Anyway, my 2 cents.

[Jack Sheldon]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on 1 July 1916 with us wbroun. You raise an interesting point; viz. 'The first day of the Somme was not inevitable. It did not have to happen that way.' I have never heard that idea expressed in precisely those terms and would be most interested to hear about the line of thought which led you to this conclusion and where you believe that the plan and/or execution of this massive operation should have been tackled differently.

Jack

[mmckay395]

I find myself with mixed feelings about this book. I admire and enjoy the research tremendously, and find so many sections of it gripping, but I also feel unpersuaded by what I see as Peter Hart's efforts to "rehabilitate" the reputation of Haig. There's a fatalistic attitude about this book, and a kind of revulsion towards any sort of broader historical perspective. Sorry, but I still regard Haig as a butcher. The first day of the Somme wasn't inevitable. It didn't have to happen that way. Communication problems or not, Haig should have had a better idea what was happening. Anyway, my 2 cents.

I would be interested in how you reached the conclusion that Haig should have had a better idea what was happening. Considering that within 18 months he went from commanded a Corps (i think) to the largest army Britain had ever raised (57 Divisions I think) I personally don't think there's any place for 'should haves'.

But thats just my two cents.

[PMHart]

It always amazes me when I see yet another generation of 'donkeys wallopers' charging towards the guns of George Webster, Jack Sheldon, Tom Rutherford, Chris Baker et al. There they are armed with no ammunition of facts, no conceptual grasp of what was, or indeed is, going on; in fact no idea at all - other than - of course - their own innate prejudices honed by something an elderly gentlemen may, or may not, have told them forty years ago, or something in 'a book they once read'! How long we can allow this piteous suffering to go on? Surely there has to be an end to this slaughter of the mindless innocents? Think of the children!

Pete

[kenneth505]

It always amazes me when I see yet another generation of 'donkeys wallopers' charging towards the guns of George Webster, Jack Sheldon, Tom Rutherford, Chris Baker et al. There they are armed with no ammunition of facts, no conceptual grasp of what was, or indeed is, going on; in fact no idea at all - other than - of course - their own innate prejudices honed by something an elderly gentlemen may, or may not, have told them forty years ago, or something in 'a book they once read'! How long we can allow this piteous suffering to go on? Surely there has to be an end to this slaughter of the mindless innocents? Think of the children!

Pete

I don't have my copy of your book on hand, it's on loan, but don't you demonstrate that many of the men on the spot were aware that the artillery barrage had not achieved its objectives?

[wbroun]

It always amazes me when I see yet another generation of 'donkeys wallopers' charging towards the guns of George Webster, Jack Sheldon, Tom Rutherford, Chris Baker et al. There they are armed with no ammunition of facts, no conceptual grasp of what was, or indeed is, going on; in fact no idea at all - other than - of course - their own innate prejudices honed by something an elderly gentlemen may, or may not, have told them forty years ago, or something in 'a book they once read'! How long we can allow this piteous suffering to go on? Surely there has to be an end to this slaughter of the mindless innocents? Think of the children!

Pete

Hey, I bought the book and I would certainly recommend it highly to others. I simply felt less persuaded by Chapter 14. I fail to understand your purpose in arguing that Haig's way "was the only realistic way at the time"; your logic seems to come to a kind of fruition in the crazy observation that once war is enacted, "the butcher's bill" must be paid. But that's just not true. Don't battles involve decisions of moral degrees and questions of scale all the time? The war-as-consumer-transaction analogy is dubious, too, but (accepting it) what if the butcher is giving you offal when you've paid for filet mignon?

Your logic becomes oddly contradictory in Ch. 14, too. You complain on the one hand about "emotional vampires" gaming the numbers, but your butcher's bill analogy is all about vaporizing all sense of scale and reducing human loss to a problem of home economics.

There's also a loud (and contemptuous?) subtext throughout Ch. 14 that, really, we should all stop feeling sorry for the poor soldiers because, alas, they were awfully courageous British soldiers, weren't they? Yes, they were. Was that ever in doubt? Is that even a contested subject?

But obviously, you've more than earned the right to offer an assessment of the war (far more than I!). Your dogged devotion to the men is moving and your scholarship endlessly absorbing. For me, Ch. 14 is more of a head-scratcher, not a deal-breaker. I certainly would not want to overstate my misgivings about the entire text. Something tells me that I will never disagree with you on these points, and vice versa, but I'll always treasure the book because it brings to life, on so many levels, the day-in-day-out textures of the conflict. I can think of few WWI texts I've read where such a rounded and not entirely comfortable or soothing tableaux of the personalities of everyday soldiers emerges.

[hazelclark]

Criticism of any work, whether of literature or art for that matter, is subjective. It is coloured by the tastes and prejudices of the audience. Any work of the scope of the 1st World War must be of necessity, a composite of the author"s research and experience, and the reader further adds his own experience in the genre to his interpretation of the work. The more one reads, the more sophisticated one becomes in one's requirements of the work and one's interpretation of that work. Only by adding this previous experience to one's emotional connection to the book can one form any kind of opinion. But it is just that - an opinion. And it belongs to one person only.

Hazel C.

It always amazes me when I see yet another generation of 'donkeys wallopers' charging towards the guns of George Webster, Jack Sheldon, Tom Rutherford, Chris Baker et al. There they are armed with no ammunition of facts, no conceptual grasp of what was, or indeed is, going on; in fact no idea at all - other than - of course - their own innate prejudices honed by something an elderly gentlemen may, or may not, have told them forty years ago, or something in 'a book they once read'! How long we can allow this piteous suffering to go on? Surely there has to be an end to this slaughter of the mindless innocents? Think of the children!

Pete

[PMHart]

Hi Wbroun,

My slightly sharp response was based on your first comment which was vague in the extreme and seemed to leave you in grave danger! Your second contribution is fair enough as far I'm concerned and makes your point far clearer!

I have spent a long time squaring the circle between my natural human sympathies for all those who died and my 'intellectual' grasp and acceptance of the horrendous problems thrown up by the tactical and technological situation in 1916. Believe it or not, it is something that we all have to go through to understand the Great War - except for George and he isn't really human! Indeed, with a few notable exceptions, we surely all move on in our grasp of the Great War. And funnily enough I am far more sympathetic to Haig than I was about seven years ago when I wrote the book! I remain entirely happy with the logic deployed in Chapter 14 - the assessment portion of the book - and to be honest it's pretty standard stuff summarising the context of the war. The butcher's bill I refer to is not from the Somme itself but rather more the grim necessity - one way or another - to kill about 2-3 million German to beat them in a continental war. Someone has to do it whether it be the French, British or as in the Second World War - the Russians. There is no simple tactical or strategical 'trick' that will defeat them easily! As the Germans had the best army in the world backed up by one of the very best economies it demanded a horrendous commitment. I have no idea what you are talking about in your remarks about a contemptuous subtext!

Having said that you have still evaded young Jack's question!

What would you have done differently? Given the requirements of alliance warfare and that the French - legitimately due to the atrocious pressure they were under at Verdun - demanded an early attack before the British were really ready? Given that the so-called 'Easterner' solution is not worth discussing in a grown up environment? Given that the tactical roller-coasters was unfortunately badly positioned for the British on 1 July? Given that they didn't have the 20-20 hindsight that we now deploy in 2012!

But the British learnt a great deal over the next few terrible months. Not just millions of individuals gaining in the military skills, which they needed and hitherto conspicuously lacked, but as a whole the BEF became a proper army - and I honestly can't be bothered to explain all that again!!!! Unfortunately at the same time the Germans were mutating their tactics - so it never became easy. War never is. Only right wing fantasists - say Alan Clark - think that there is an easy magic way to win a war painlessly! Remember the bloody mess that was the American introduction to the Western Front in 1918 when they ignored all the lessons learnt by the French and British over the previous three years and reverted to a belief in the power of the infantryman and his trusty rifle: a bloody slaughter that's what happened! Now that was criminal stupidity so please turn your guns on Pershing not Haig!

Cheers,

Pete

[phil andrade]

It always amazes me when I see yet another generation of 'donkeys wallopers' charging towards the guns

What's going to happen when they stop ?

You might be even more amazed.

Without them, I think the Forum would be diminished.

Thank God for cannon fodder !

Phil (PJA)

[truthergw]

Hi Wbroun. In your first post, you maintain that Haig was a butcher. That is a view which most students of the Great War would consider to have been refuted for the last thirty years or so. I would be interested in your reasons for reverting to it. I assume that the basis for your rejection of Haig's strategy is the same as that which motivated Lloyd George et al. You are apalled by the casualties incurred on the Western front. You are convinced that there must have been a better way. Unfortunately, there was no better way that Haig and his General Staff could see at the time and no better way was ever convincingly proposed by their detractors throughout the years of denigration which followed his death. We have only to look at the attempts to find a better way to see their futility. Gallipoli, Salonika and Mespot were the real exemplars of futility in war where men and material was wasted to no account. Even the ultimately victorious campaign in Palestine was of little importance in defeating the main enemy where it mattered. I pass lightly over the geo-political repercussions which are with us still. All of that is a matter of great complexity and will provide students with problems to debate for some time to come. I believe that if we are to further our understanding of the war we need to analyse the facts as dispassionately as we can and that brings me back to my question. Why do you choose to use an emotive and very outdated epithet to describe the British CiC ?

[phil andrade]

Remember the bloody mess that was the American introduction to the Western Front in 1918 when they ignored all the lessons learnt by the French and British over the previous three years and reverted to a belief in the power of the infantryman and his trusty rifle: a bloody slaughter that's what happened! Now that was criminal stupidity so please turn your guns on Pershing not Haig!

Cheers,

Pete

US battle deaths entire Western Front : 53,000 ( 260,000 casualties)

British Empire battle deaths on the Some alone, July - November 1916 : 131,000 ( 420,000 casualties)

Perhaps the slaughter of American soldiers has been exaggerated.

I do take your point, though....presumably, you're emphasising that US casualties were higher than they needed to have been.

Phil (PJA)

[Jaqueline Dubois]

It was indeed a very difficult read !!

[rbrauerei]

An alternate view; I just finished this book by Gilbert's on the Somme and found it a quite easy read. I highly respect Gilbert's work and this book adds to an important niche in my view - that of the cost of war on a personal level. I don't desire to add (or continue) the above debate on Haig's competency, choices, or the reasons that led to the Somme. However, I do want to re-emphasize the cost of those decisions - which I think Gilbert's book clearly tallies. I think it's critically important to have this trench-view of the battle as much as it is to have the broad Commander-in-Chief and Army-level sweeping overviews of an important battle. It seems to me that most WWI books describe battles as if they are some kind of strategic game that always ends in stalemate and you get no real sense - other than the gross numbers of casualities - of their human cost. Gilbert effectively weaves personal views and trench-level reality with the strategic level impressions of Haig and the Army-level commanders; this book shows better than most the individual cost and impact of those high-level decisions. On almost every page, Gilbert references a diary or individual account of a soldier or officer to give one a vivid impression of the Somme battlefield. Almost every paragraph ends with Private *name" died, body never recovered, memoralized on the Thiepval or other memorial. Much more gripping and telling than an epilogue chaptr with a table of thousands of unnamed casualities. I firmly believe this is an important addition to the body of work and at the risk of being overly dramatic - a bit of like having a piece of Thiepval Memorial on my booshelf.

[hazelclark]

Chacun a son gout!

H.C.

[David Filsell]

Another old sweat's paradise, but back to the question about Somme books. Peter Hart is definitely a must read but I would add William Philpotts Bloody victory. Certainly no pro pro Haig, but an excellent account which give the french a bit of a show too and really made me think.

[hazelclark]

I have just got Hart's book and it is in my pile reading pile, but had not heard of "Bloody Victory"

Thanks for the suggestion. My problem with Gilbert was the way it was written as much as anything else - very disjointed and was disappointing after enjoying his WW1 history.

Hazel