The somme

[Guest grantaloch]

I know this book must have been discussed time and again, but being a newbie to posting I would like to have my say.I know they are totaly anti high command, but they evidence they submit, must be documented and true, and it makes truely horrendous reading and it makes it very difficult to make up my own mind in the great debate, because I Have obviously read the revisionist side of the debate and find it very difficult to know which side of the fence to sit on. OR is this a Taboo subject. any clarifacation would greatly appreciated.(Gantaloch.) Bob.

[armourersergeant]

The problem with facts and statistics is that you can usually get them to say what you want, for or against the Generals.

Be in no rush to make your mind up is my advice. Keep on reading from both sides of the arguement and your opinion will develope.

regards

Arm

[treetop]

I grew up being very anti Donkey leadership but as I have seen and experienced responsibility I believe the Generals did a good job in many ways and aren't given enough credit. They Won against a determined enemy set in strong defensive lines,no mean feat. They had to learn new methods of warfare and made many mistakes but most of the Generals mistakes have been cross examined and analysed by history. Few of the Lions mistakes get such an unsympathetic hearing.Criticise the worst examples by all means but lets not condemn them all because ofa few fools,either.

[bmac]

In my view there is as much to be learnt about the quality of generalship in 1916 (and I am talking specifically about 1916) by studying the planning of the Battle of the Somme as there is by its conduct.

I will leave it at that for the time being ...

[Robert Dunlop]

Sorry, Bill. Not quite sure what you are saying here. Do you mean that the planning was as bad as the implementation? If so, is this based on Prior and Wilson's work?

Robert

[bmac]

Robert,

I have been digging around in this area for a while and, whilst referring to P&W (amongst others), have also read through the various exchanges of GHQ letters, Haig diaries, 4th Army plans, etc. My conclusion is that the planning of the original campaign was a dog's breakfast. I could go into detail but essentially, Rawlinson's original (and quite sensible) objective - "to kill as many Germans as possible with least cost to ourselves" - was over-ridden by Haig's belief in a potential breakthrough and, as a result, a horribly dodgy compromise was reached which fulfilled neither objective.

Then, once the battle had started, Haig seemed to forget his own statement that if the attack got bogged down on the Pozieres plateau then it should be switched elsewhere, almost certainly to Messines where Plumer was within a short period of being ready to attack.

Thankfully for all concerned my dinner is now on the table so I must leave orf!

[Justin Moretti]

I think on balance this book was all right. Yes, it totally canes Haig and Rawly at some points, but then again it has to. Between them they DID make a much worse job of the planning than they might have, and it can be argued that they got a lot more men killed than might absolutely have been necessary.

Then again, it does bust SOME of the worst myths about the worst of the British commanders' incompetence and the general story about what happened on Day One.

The true story, as always, lies somewhere in between. The fact is that day one was a disaster, but it never happened again (and it so easily might have...), and as Terraine never tired of pointing out, the "Great Captains of History" took proportionate losses, if not on the same absolute scale, and nobody denigrates them the way they do Haig.

Does anyone have figures for how Fifth Army's retreat from the Kaiserschlacht compares in percentage and absolute losses to Napoleon's retreat from Moscow? Put in this light, Gough may not have done all that badly after all...

[Guest RossBeadle]

Any list of the best books on the Great War I might think of includes several by Prior and Wilson, who bring an analytical throughness to everything they write. Their book on Rawlinson is one of the few that tackles the issue of trench fighting vertically, that is it works through aspects from the leader, Rawlinson through to the front line. Most books are either all about strategy or all about the Tommy.

The Somme is up their usual high standard. They re-run their thesis about artillery density and identify the clear management errors by Rawlinson and Haig. They challenge the usual platitudes about the apparent success of the night attack - it was not down to the time of day, merely that Rawlinson got his artillery density right. They identify clearly the unco-ordinated nature of the various attacks in August and early September.

It is not for the general reader, who wants to know what happened after Martin Middlebrook's book finishes. But it does not deal in platitudes, so that even if you disagree, their arguements are well made.

[Crunchy]

Hi There,

I"m a newbie to the forum, albeit a retired ex-military newbie with active service experience. I thought P&W's The Somme an interesting and valuable contribution to the bibliography of The Battle of the Somme and I would recommend it to any serious student of the Great War.

I don't regard it as "anti-general". I think they demonstrate quite well that Haig was far too optimistic and pretty much out of touch with the reality of what was actually achievable, but without the invective of Alan Clark or Denis Winter. The lack of coordination of many of the subsequent attacks, and the resulting casualties, must rest squarely with Rawlinson and his Corps commanders. Nonetheless P&W give credit where credit is due.

It is well written, easy to read and their case is well argued. They bring an analytical approach to the study of this battle that others don't. It certainly enlightened me that most of the assault battalions did not merely march across no -mans land on 1 July. Their analysis of the different approaches many of the battalions and each of the different Corps took was illuminating.

The Somme was a tragedy and this book goes a long way in explaining why it was such a tragedy. Whether we accept their artillery thesis is another matter, but they certainly provide a compelling case. Neuve Chappell 1915 tends to support their point.

Overall a bok worth having on the library shelf.

Chris R

[FAAAEd]

The true story, as always, lies somewhere in between.

Indeed but along the continuum between 'Donkeys' and the 'revisionist perspective' it seems to me that the true story is closer to Donkeys.

The fact is that day one was a disaster, but it never happened again

I would consider that the debacle that was High Wood suggests otherwise where the use of cavalary indicates that the breakthrough idea was alive and well. 'The Hell They Called High Wood' by, the late, Terry Norman makes compelling and informative reading.

[Steven Broomfield]

I just bought this for £12.99 (paperback) at Waterstone's in Winchester. Looking forward to reading it; I certainly found their book on Rawlinson extremely interesting, and their passcehendaele book is also extreemly good.

[AndyMacdonald]

I know this book must have been discussed time and again, but being a newbie to posting I would like to have my say.I know they are totaly anti high command, but they evidence they submit, must be documented and true, and it makes truely horrendous reading and it makes it very difficult to make up my own mind in the great debate, because I Have obviously read the revisionist side of the debate and find it very difficult to know which side of the fence to sit on. OR is this a Taboo subject. any clarifacation would greatly appreciated.(Gantaloch.) Bob.

You're correct: the book is a truly horrendous read.

Andy M

[Steven Broomfield]

You're correct: the book is a truly horrendous read.

Andy M

Oh - horrendous as in "cr*p book", or horrendous as in "harrowing"?

[ypres1418]

Hi all,

just to let you have had some bad news this week Bob (Granteloch) passed away two weeks ago, forum condolences have been sent via one of the set from the Sussex meetings. Do not have any more details.

Mandy

[AndyMacdonald]

Oh - horrendous as in "cr*p book", or horrendous as in "harrowing"?

The former. Although jammed with information it's poorly written.

[Steven Broomfield]

Ah...I'll be embarking on it at the weeknd, I suspect, so I'll see how it goes.

[Crunchy]

The former. Although jammed with information it's poorly written.

Hi Andy,

I not sure if we are talking about the same book. But if it is Prior and Wilson's "The Somme" I'm afraid I can't agree with you that it is cr*p and poorly written. I think it is well written and cogently argued. Certainly easy to comprehend and follow the battle. It compares well with other books I have read on the subject and was more analytical than many. Just back from walking the battlefield and from my own military experience I must say that I am more convinced by their argument than previously was the case. But then again, we all have different views and that's what makes discussions interesting.

Steven,

I would welcome your views once you ahve finished the book.

Regards

Crunchy

[squirrel]

Crunchy,

I agree that the book is well researched, well written and all of the sources are listed. Certainly put things in to a fresh perspective for me having been to the Somme again in September and having read their book on Rawlinson as well.

[Crunchy]

Crunchy,

I agree that the book is well researched, well written and all of the sources are listed. Certainly put things in to a fresh perspective for me having been to the Somme again in September and having read their book on Rawlinson as well.

Thanks Squirrel,

We were there in September as well. We were the four old foggies trudging over the ground under the tutelege of Peter Pedersen (author of Monash as a Military Commander who is also mate from our Army days). It was an execellent trip and very sobering. Did all of battlefields at which Aussies fought on the Western Front plus Cambrai, including "Deborah", (couple of tankies in the party) and 1st July 1916. Much impressed with the Brit visitor centre at Thiepval - it has been done very well. We came away with new perspectives on what we saw, a much better understanding of the overall planning, both good and bad, and the ground that the battle was fought over. We also felt that Prior and Wilson had done a pretty good job of making sense of what happened

By the way, Peter has a new book coming out next March. I think it is called Anzacs: Gallipoli to the Western Front which Penquin commissioned him to write. Had to cut out a lot to meet the word limit but he has made some analysis of performence at the end of each chapter. On our trip, he rated a couple of the Brit Commanders who commanded Aussie and NZ divisions very well and a couple of our home grown Aussie commanders poorly and I gather these are made in his book; which is refreshing and about time that some of the myths were challenged. Given what we discuused at each site we agreed with him.

Keep well

Crunchy

[AndyHollinger]

I am convinced that the more you read the less likely you will have clear opinions or clear answers. The more I deal with history as a profession, the more I say ... "It's not as easy as that." "The answer is complex and defies reason" is another favorite phrase.

Although I am moved to tears often in studying this war, I am also, and almost in direct proportion moved in admiration for the players.

I have not read the book (he says cleverly two paragraphs into the answer) but the Somme, Haig, Why Ieper, and other such questions are the real heart of your question.

I have only been in one situation where other human beings in clothes not like mine were throwing steel in my direction trying to deter whatever action they thought I was doing that was negative to them. Since I had followed Jefferson Davis' advice to new officers and did not eat breakfast that morning I had no solid waste material to deposit in my trousers. I remember thinking that if I could just get lower behind some pebbles that it might shield me from both AK and Light Machine Gun ... and that, in modern warfare, artillery does't kill many people. I don't remember many sounds ... but somewhere in the first few millenea of this experience, I started doing things that one might say - if you were from a distance - were actions of an officer in command. I remember chastising several EM about their position and asking them to move to another position post haste ... I remember moving myself just behind a machine gun sweep. I rememer finding what most people would call a slight impression but to me was a hole ... looking a map and deciding I had no freaking idea but I could adjust from the impacts ... I watched as armor moved below us (which was my job) and then it was over ....

I say this because there is no history of this ... there is no definitive explanation or historical viewpoint. Somewhere in an Army not mine they planned for this many tanks to move and my army wanted me to watch because there were problems with the equipment that Army bought from my Army ... the opposite Army didn't want the tanks to move where they did ... I am sure there are operations orders quite well written as Geo Washington instructed his officers as he had learned from Amherst and before him Ligonier ... I am sure there are after-action reports (including mine) somewhere but was that the history ... was I a Donkey or a Lion or simply a scared kid?

The more you know, the more it gets complex ... and the more full your understanding of the chaos that is war ...

[PhilB]

"It's not as easy as that." "The answer is complex and defies reason" is another favorite phrase.

The medics have a useful expression. "Ah well, it`s multifactorial, you see". Phil B

[AndyMacdonald]

Andy,

Thanks for your reply to the post. FYI, I never said the book was cr*p. I said it was jammed with information - much of it useful - but nonetheless an horrendous read. It is certainly not a definative account of the Somme, 1916. I stand by my comments, and could add heaps more criticism. In the event, the phrases 'mind numbing' and word 'boring' come to mind for this book. Do you get my hint?

Andy M

[Michael Molkentin]

"The Somme" by Prior and Wilson is a splendid book. The research intensity is very impressive. They have, it seems, consulted a vast number of primary documents relating to the conduct of the Somme battle to evidence their analysis.

I really like the 'transparency' of their style; you can really see the path that their analysis of sources is taking, and the trail of evidence that builds up to a conclusion.

I personally didn't find the prose boring either. On the contrary, I think that the text tended to be quite witty and sharp, especially when narrating the proceedings of war cab meetings. I have seen Robin Prior speak a few times and he is a very, very witty man. I think that this shows through in this book, appropriately, of course.

In conclusion, I think that this will be, for years to come, THE book on the Somme. While not 'definititive' (there is no such thing in history), it will be a standard on the campaign's reading lists for quite a while.

[Chris Henschke]

I think the book is an excellent reference - a book that can lead to other areas of research. The primary sources quoted are impressive.

It is not a novel. It is not meant to be entertaining.

Using unit war diaries, official histories or operation orders are quite dry, for example, and (whilst it is interesting) not what I would call 'entertaining.' Having said that, I still enjoyed the manner in which the book was presented.

Use it as a reference. I can't understand why people want to compare a book like this to a 'good read'.

Now, who did I loan my copy to...?

[AndyMacdonald]

I think the book is an excellent reference - a book that can lead to other areas of research. The primary sources quoted are impressive.

It is not a novel. It is not meant to be entertaining.

Using unit war diaries, official histories or operation orders are quite dry, for example, and (whilst it is interesting) not what I would call 'entertaining.' Having said that, I still enjoyed the manner in which the book was presented.

Use it as a reference. I can't understand why people want to compare a book like this to a 'good read'.

Now, who did I loan my copy to...?

I'm not trying to compare the book to a 'good read'. It is simply poorly written, although jammed with useful information. The problem with academics - but not all academics - are that their strengths lay purely in research and sometimes analysis. They are not writers and accordingly fumble with their sentences, paragraphs, pages, chapters and - in the event - the tomes they produce. Have you guys caught my increasingly unsubtle hint yet?

Andy M