Most important defence of 1914-18.

[armourersergeant]

Having just watched the programme about the 'Lost Prince' this evening and seeing the reaction to what i assume was the Geramn march 1918 attacks i was wondering what other Pals thoughts were to their opinion regarding the most vital defence of the 1914-18 war on the allied side.

I have always seen the 1914 le Cateau battle as the one that stopped Von Kluck marching to the sea but was the defence put up by the men in 1918 as important if not more important than that by the 'Old Comtemptibles'. And if such why do they not get the cudos deserved to them as the the old soldiers do?

Arm.

[Robert Dunlop]

And if such why do they not get the cudos deserved to them as the the old soldiers do?

There will be many reasons. Just to kick off. In 1914, everything was still fresh and full of expectation. It would be over by Christmas. The BEF would triumph in great style. All newsworthy stuff. Even with the retreat in full swing, the dogged defence of Le Cateau would still be the stuff of Boy's Own.

By 1918, everyone, including the press, was war-weary. There had been the horrors of Ypres, the highs and then dramatic lows of Cambrai, and now the ignominious retreat before the German spring offensive. Not what Fleet St was after would be my guess.

[Annette Burgoyne]

The battles of The Aisne and Marne 1914, after these two battles the German Army lost any real chances of an out-right win.

Annette

[Chris_Baker]

The Lys, May 1918. Came within an ace of cutting off the lines of communication to the British Second and First Armies. I strongly believe that had Hazebrouck fallen, the Germans would have reached the Channel, Belgian and Second Army at least would have been cut off and potentially destroyed, and the Allies would have capitulated. This was before the Americans had arrived in strength; immediately after Operation Michael when many British units were shattered; before fresh men had come in great numbers from UK; and - I believe - before the French were in much condition to make a decisive difference. If the Germans had succeeded, I have no doubt that morale in Germany would have soared, and the many disruptive influences in the heimat would not have achieved significance.

[Geoff Parker]

I think First Ypres Oct/Nov 14 and Second Ypres Apr/May 15 rate as being

among the most critical defensive battles. As Chris says that the Battle of Lys

in 1918 was critical but I'm not convinced it would have had the same impact

as if the Germans had broken through in either 1914 or 1915. Men and equipment

were a lot thinner on the ground than they were in 1918.

Geoff

[Chris_Baker]

It's a good point Geoff, but I think that is exactly why the Lys was the critical moment. For the British, the force in 1914 although a very fine thing was also not a very big thing and it's loss would not have been crippling to the Empire. Britain would have fought on. It's navy was the key thing anyway! Losing Second Army and more in May 1918, after all that had gone before, would have been a crippling blow to morale, prestige, manpower and economy. The jig would have been up.

The French component should also not be forgotten. The French Army in 1914 was not small, and would surely have fought on had Ypres and the BEF been lost in October/November 1914. It may have been overstretched and even ultimately defeated I guess but Germany was also pretty stretched at that time. Would the result not simply have been a continuous Western Front, with Ypres and the Channel ports behind enemy lines?

A thought provoking question, arm!

[armourersergeant]

Perhaps the question should be if the BEF had been defeated and the remains returned to the UK how long would it have been before they returned?

Would this have left the French to fight on and lose and even if they had dug in and held would their mind set have been to get back the french land lost at any cost?

By 1918 the Americans were coming, would these men have been transferd to the UK and formed the back bone of an army much the same on the lines of WW2. To my mind the UK and the war itself were far more vunerable in 1914 than in 1918. I can not see the Germans launching an invasion in 1918, but would they have done in 1914?

Arm.

[Greenwoodman]

I'd agree with Chris - the Battle of the Lys was crucial. The "scrambling defence" put up by British divisions (some already badly mauled in March) was vital following the hammer blow through the Portuguese. The Allies clung on, the Germans just couldn't raise themselves a notch higher, and the Channel Ports were saved (read Joynt VC's book and you'll be convinced the Aussies did it!!).

This is the battle that triggered the "Backs to the wall" signal from Haig, both a pointer to the desperateness of the situation, and Haig's depth of feeling about it.

Geoff

I don't feel that 2nd Ypres was as critical - the Germans did not expect to exploit their gains, and did not have the reserves available to do so. They expected limited gains, and consolidated on those.

[Geoff Parker]

Geoff

I don't feel that 2nd Ypres was as critical - the Germans did not expect to exploit their gains, and did not have the reserves available to do so. They expected limited gains, and consolidated on those.

I agree that the situation in 1915 was not as great as 1914 and that the Germans

did not expect the initial gas attacks to have the effect that it did and they had

not anticipated a large breakthrough. But by the latter part of the battle the Germans had realised that there was an opportunity to break the BEF and consequently pushed very hard. There were no British reinforcements available in

the salient as French was preparing for Neuve Chappelle further south.

In 1918 had the channels ports been lost, there were still other ports open

such as Bordeaux, (this port was used in 1940 to ship British units into and out

of France after the evacuation from Dunkirk).

Even the loss of 2nd Army would not have stopped the French from fighting, nor

the USA. I couldn't see Britain or government quitting at that point, it would have

had no standing in future world politics.

Geoff

[Annette Burgoyne]

Arm

If we (French and British) had not stopped the Germans on the Marne, I am sure they would have gone on to take Paris but then again its ifs and buts, and if Aunty had B**** she'd be uncle.

After trench warfare had set in boths sides (thinking of the French to start with, then the British from mid 1916) were on par with each another until 1918, when the Germans had the upper hand in man power but then throw it all away by not staying to their plan of rolloing the British line up around Arras, instead they pushed south-west, with no real tactical gains.

le Cateau delayed the Germans and saved I Corps but the Marne robbed the Germans of victory.

I also agree with Chris - that the Battle of the Lys was a crucial battle but not as crucial as the Marne.

Annette

[paul guthrie]

The thread is focusing too much on British role. We all know Gremany entered the war intending to win via Schlieffen, there was absolutely no back up plan, Hew Strachan my authority. Their defeat in Marne 1 was almost entirely a French victory and the decisive battle of the war. Even the Crown Prince admitted the war was lost though it would go on a long time. Now the British and Belgian armies did play an important part in what happened prior to Marne 1 but did not substantially affect the outcome of battle itself.

The French went on to hold off Germany pretty much on its own at least well into 1915, not entirely of course but a very large majority of the men engaged were French and they held almost all of the line.

Gremans may have had a chance again if they prevailed at 1st Ypres. May because they would have had to go on to take the channel ports and prevent British from ever becoming a large and effective force. On top of the may, remember the French played a more important role in that battle that did British in Marne 1.

[Thomas]

If the French had given in to Germans left wing of the Schieffen plan then Paris would have been captured had it not have been for the defence of the French around Grand Couronne between the end of August and September the 10th 1914.

The German casualties during the battles in the area were enormous, due to Helmuth Von Moltke eagerness for victory in that area he sent three corps (100,000) to the left wing when they were desperately needed for the hammer blow on the right.

If the German army had succeded in breaking through to Paris in September 1914 then a situation not totally unlike 1870 could have happened. Had it not been for the desisive battles aroun the Grand Couronne and the succsesfull defence by the French.

From,

Thomas McCall

[Will O'Brien]

I would also agree with Chris with regards to the critical nature of the Battle of Lys...............I have just finished reading Gary Sheffield's Forgotten Victory, The First World War Myths & Realities & I was very taken with what he wrote about this particular battle & its implications for the BEF if the 1st & 2nd Armies had been defeated......................It was in all probability the Germans last chance of tipping the balance in their favour sufficiently enough to gain a favourable peace settlement with them in the stronger negotiating position.(I'm not too sure whether victory at Lys would have given them out right victory)

[spike10764]

In my opinion-The 1st Battle of the Marne-if the French had not defeated the Germans there then the taking of Paris would have spelt defeat for the allies.

The British would have retreated on the Channel Ports and the whole alliance would probably have collapsed in acrimony.The Germans would have virtually won the War and in time would have won the peace also.

( I don't think immediate invasion of Britain would have followed -but who can tell?)

The French victory was the most important one of the whole war-the Germans had to be driven back before they could bring up their supply lines and guns to threaten a 'shaky' Paris.

Spike