Complete victory on the Somme

[AndyHollinger]

Discussions of strategy at this level combine military thinking, political assumptions and the personalities (not to mention agendas) of those involved. The Somme happened for a unique mixture of these things and it's results are both factual and inferencial.

You might as well say, without the Somme could the Allies have won? It makes as much sense. If Grant had husbanded his men's welfare, could the North have won? If Perecles had understood the value of a elastic defense would Rome have risen?

Is this string a subtle tactic to re-introduce the Donkeys and Haig strings?

My view is that the players involved fought because they felt not only they had to take the offensive but had a chance of obtaining positive objectives. You don't win wars fighting on the defensive unless your Longstreet lovers in the 21st Century.

[PhilB]

You`ve emphasized my weak point, Andy! Is it possible to be pro-Grant and anti-Haig?

Phil B

[Muerrisch]

One problem with Haig is that it is difficult not to have preconceptions. It would be an interesting experiment to take 100 bright VIth Formers [not called that these days], ask them who Haig was, select only those who say "IDUNNO" in that endearing way they have, and give them a week's seminar on the hard facts without spin.

And then set an essay [carefully] asking for their judgement on Haig the Leader of the BEF.

[As an insight, I was subjected recently to a storm of invective [from a Scots lady] against Haig the Butcher. I heard her out, and then tested her knowledge. Total claptrap, not a fact to be heard. Against that unreasoning prejudice there can be no antidote]

[truthergw]

give them a week's seminar on the hard facts without spin.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Interesting experiment if it could be made. Trouble is, some facts tend to go all soft when you examine them up close. WW1 is taught at secondary level and when I talked to two bright young students about their Gt Gt Grandfathers' war, I was thunderstruck at their understanding of how the war was fought and how Germany lost. They were stabbed in the back if you must know. I thought that one went out with the Nazis.

I do not go along with the soldiers against politicians scenario. At the most senior levels, soldiers ARE politicians.

[PhilB]

I do not go along with the soldiers against politicians scenario. At the most senior levels, soldiers ARE politicians.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And politicians are soldiers to a greater or lesser extent. Lincoln would be a good example and the Kaiser, I suppose. One couldn`t accuse of DLlG of steering clear of matters military either! It might have been interesting had Haig followed the examples of numerous other top military men and gone into politics. I can`t think of any British WW1 commanders who did? Phil B

[AndyHollinger]

That, of course, is the problem. You CAN'T give a seminar without a spin. Can't be done. The minute you sumarize, emphasize or select a fact, you spin.

Counter-factual history is really just a long name for FICTION. Non-fiction is another name for "here's what I think ..." and, if the person is a trained historian, "... and why."

Although I might seem dry ... I believe it's through the combination of the non-fiction approach that we get our own view, picture or understanding. The last WWI book I read was something like the Truth about Paschendale ... which I tosed to the review section here and got many good summaries ... read it ... and came out with You can't blame Haig - blame the cabinet, he still screwed up because he wouldn't listen and hired some "yes men" to work for him, and, of course the secret was Artillery, Artillery .. and, oh yes, artillery. Was this book, RIGHT ... well, it had it's points ... have I become a "believer" - no. It all adds up.

I think we do ourselves disservice when we start believing we're an expert or believe others to be experts when things get clearer versus muddier. The more we know about History, the more we should realize that there's just so many more unanswered questions.

The more I know about Lee the more issues I have with his command style. The more issues I have with his command style, the more I realize him as person, less the Saint. [You do realize don't you that R.E. Lee Memorial Episcopal church in Lexington, VA is the only Anglican Communion church in the world, not named for a Saint or other Holy symbol - or is it?] The more I know about Grant, the more admiration I have ....

But, face it ... admiration and the like are views and emotions, hopefully supported by facts that are interpreted from evidence provided by people who have views of their own.

I have been anxiously awaiting the NEW Haig diary. It will provide me, hopefully, some real insights so that my muddy view of him will be clearer - but of course with Newton's third law, my view of the war will become muddier in an equal if not opposite reaction. Haig, like Lee or Grant - Hey, like Charles Churchill or W.S. are tremendously complex people ... the best we'll get is glimmers and they will be filtered though our own beliefs and ideas.

My own view is discussing things like IF the Somme had worked ... are a lot like arguing political promises ... they are exercises in blood-pressure vitality and nothing else.

[AndyHollinger]

And politicians are soldiers to a greater or lesser extent. Lincoln would be a good example and the Kaiser, I suppose. One couldn`t accuse of DLlG of steering clear of matters military either!  It might have been interesting had Haig followed the examples of numerous other top military men and gone into politics. I can`t think of any British WW1 commanders who did? Phil B

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think in a thread a while back we looked at the British WWII politicans and come up with some ... but, on the whole, I think Britain's top soldiers were very tired and worn ... and the victory was not as clean cut in public view. Had there been no long waiting period between the end of the active fighting and the peace treaty something might have been different (there we go again)

Perhaps it was the ACW where the lines between military and civilian were really blurred for the first time ... Modern, Mass warfare demands both and so at ALL levels, they are blurred.

[spike10764]

Without going into Butchers and Bunglers, or who's to blame, I don't think as the original post asks, that a victory at the Somme, would have changed the war.

The sheer firepower of modern weapons meant that total victory, was in effect, impossible. Breakthroughs and rolling up fronts, just did not occur, even in 1918. The German offensive was stopped via a stretching back of lines to absorb the blows, the 100 days forced the Germans backward a long way but did not break through.

I agree a successful Somme attack would have gone much like Cambrai. The armies of both sides were too evenly matched to be routed. The Germans could easily have retreated to their own borders, before the chance of a breakthrough would present itself (then the urge to stand and fight may have been strong enough to prevent withdrawal on a large scale)

Haig may well have gone down differently in popular lore if the Somme had worked( as Arm suggests), whatever the casualties. Mind, seeing as the plan was to breakthrough and roll up the front, it's difficult to pinpoint exactly what "success" would have been regarded as.