Actually, having had another look I can't find this so it may well refer to the time after the offensive bagan.Attrition wrote:It's in the introduction, when the Germans were contemplating their choices as the attack loomed. The 'inexorable' Entente advances hadn't begun. It looks to me to be a matter of 'damned if they did, damned if they didn't'. They quote German writings.
" Bloody Victory: The Sacrifice on the Somme..."
Re: " Bloody Victory: The Sacrifice on the Somme..."
-
- Member
- Posts: 508
- Joined: 10 Apr 2004, 08:14
- Location: England
Re: " Bloody Victory: The Sacrifice on the Somme..."
Prior to Third Ypres, ie during the lull after the Battle of Messines, the Germans strengthened their existing positions. The work was carried out under the directions of von Lossberg, who was the defensive expert that helped stabilize the German defences in the latter phase of the Battles of the Somme and Arras. Numerous concrete blockhouses and pillboxes were created, and the defensive lines were increased in depth. The counter-attack tactics were formulated and practised for each sector.
During the battle, Kronprinz Rupprecht wrote about the growing concern as the Anglo-French advance continued. A new defensive line was delineated to the east of the Passchendaele ridge. Had this line been breached, the Uboat bases at Ostende and Zeebrugge/Brugge would have been untenable in Rupprecht's opinion.
Robert
During the battle, Kronprinz Rupprecht wrote about the growing concern as the Anglo-French advance continued. A new defensive line was delineated to the east of the Passchendaele ridge. Had this line been breached, the Uboat bases at Ostende and Zeebrugge/Brugge would have been untenable in Rupprecht's opinion.
Robert
Re: " Bloody Victory: The Sacrifice on the Somme..."
How's the artillery research going?
-
- Member
- Posts: 508
- Joined: 10 Apr 2004, 08:14
- Location: England
Re: " Bloody Victory: The Sacrifice on the Somme..."
Third Ypres is my focus at present. It will be a while before I get back to the Somme artillery research.
Robert
Robert
Re: " Bloody Victory: The Sacrifice on the Somme..."
I thought that that was where you were studying the artillery?
-
- Member
- Posts: 508
- Joined: 10 Apr 2004, 08:14
- Location: England
Re: " Bloody Victory: The Sacrifice on the Somme..."
I have completed a detailed review of all surviving war diaries related to the use of artillery by II Corps in June through September 1917. This included the various artillery commanders as well as the field, heavy and siege artillery units. The process will be repeated for the weeks leading up to the Somme, but only when there is a reasonable break in my work schedule. Meanwhile the write-up on Third Ypres continues.
Robert
Robert
Re: " Bloody Victory: The Sacrifice on the Somme..."
Congratulations, it's nice to hear that there's someone in England who's still got a job. ;O)
- The_Enigma
- Member
- Posts: 2270
- Joined: 14 Oct 2007, 15:59
- Location: Cheshire, England
Re: " Bloody Victory: The Sacrifice on the Somme..."
I never said that it was a mere relief operation, i stated that my original impression was that the British plan - as part of the grand strategy of the Entente - was to launch its own attack in Flanders. With events transiring as they did they ended up reacting to the German attack and French request and launched a joint offensive in the Somme region.glenn239 wrote:The British were to make an offensive in support of the Entente’s 1916 all-fronts throw to win the war. This gambit failed in spectacular fashion with the Russian army incapable of further offensive action, Rumania eliminated, and Italy and France so battered that both would soon be on the ropes. Shifting the Somme’s purpose to a mere relief operation for Verdun ignores what the Entente were doing in 1916.I thought the original strategy called for an offensive in Flanders, due to the German attacks at Verdun everything got reworked?
As i am working my way through the topic from around about here, i did appreicate it may have been answered, but any feedback into the background and original intentions etc in regards to the above would be much appreicated.
An industrial total war between the mass powers will bog down into attrition. Mass offensives and ending the war that year with one big push (ok several big pushes) seems pure folly and not giving the type of warfare the respect its due.The Somme was a bloody, tragic draw. No one won. ... part of an overall plan that failed, and that by the end of 1916 the Entente's original strategy to win the war was in ruin ... How that failure can be described as some sort of victory, I do not know.
European wars prior to the Great War had generally not lasted longer than a year and the impression it would be over by Christmas was very real. It seems each year the war was going to be won by the "big push". Surely there was someone with enough insight to realise that was a load of tosh and the war of attrition would wear down one side and defeat it?
It would intresting to find out if any of the top brass actually put said thought to paper.
Excellent point Terry.Terry Duncan wrote:Because a battle can be judged in both tactical and strategic senses, as well as on its impact on greand strategy. The Entente plans for 1916 were grand strategy, and even if that failed it does not make individual battles defeats. If that were the case, the Somme was a defeat from before it started as the Entente plan had to be changed due to German actions far earlier in the year.
Except your answer begs the question; consdierng the British and French were able to do this why did the Germans wait until the end of the year and after loosing allot of men of ground, the claim was made, was worthless before deciding to adapt their strategic options. Why not before hand, during the course of the battle etc etc?Michate wrote:If you find yourself in a streategically weaker position, where your enemy can put to the front many more men, guns and shells, you are well advised to adapt your strategic action s to that position.
Last edited by The_Enigma on 04 Feb 2010, 16:24, edited 1 time in total.
Re: " Bloody Victory: The Sacrifice on the Somme..."
1. The decision to retreat was that of Ludendorff, who only took over command in the OHL during the height of the battle. Prior to that Falkenhayn had been in command, who strictly opposed any giving up of ground , on the strategic and operational level as well as with his insistence on tactical forward defense (Falkenhayn was dismissed over the entry of Romania into the war on side of the Entente).Except your answer begs the question; consdierng the British and French were able to do this why did the Germans wait until the end of the year and after loosing allot of men of ground, the claim was made, was worthless before deciding to adapt their strategic options. Why not before hand, during the course of the battle etc etc?
2. Once you are in a battle, you have to fight, in order to maintain the coherence of the defensive system. And while the French and Brits managed to gain some ground, the German defense basically held and maintained its coherence.
3. If your enemy is determined to fight, a retreat will not save you from fighting, you will only get some time by delaying it. Then it is not a good idea to retreat from a well built position during the height of a battle, without proper preparation, without a well built line in the rear, and under pressure by the enemy. It is much preferable to retreat during a calm situation, with detailed preparation, to a (relatively) well built rear line, and without any pressure by your enemy (who in fact happens to be surprised and have difficulties to realize what is going on). These were important differences between the situations in autumn 1916 and spring 1917.
All of this I have of course said earlier in this thread.
- The_Enigma
- Member
- Posts: 2270
- Joined: 14 Oct 2007, 15:59
- Location: Cheshire, England
Re: " Bloody Victory: The Sacrifice on the Somme..."
So the Germans once comitted were willing to fight it out till the bitter end, however in the back of their minds they wanted to create reserves and free up troops and withdraw to shorten their lines - something they waited a long time to do so.
But what made them decided to do this...
PS: I was assuming that Falkenhayn was the chap in charge in the west from your previous postings although i take it thats the wrong idea to have. Why would the entry of Rumania result in his sacking?
I can think of two examples, unfortually due to my limited knowledge on this war they come from round 2, Rommel’s first offensive in Africa: his orders were to act defensively and hold the line, he decided to attack and recaptured Cyrenaica. I don’t know what to call that then?
But to be slightly more serious and look at an offensive – although nothing in comparison to the scale of the Somme – Operation Epsom; its objective was to evelope the French city of Caen but in this it failed. Its unspoken goal was to give the Germans a damn good thrashing and wear down the II SS Panzer Corps and ensure they stayed on the offensive. I don’t recall the last part being actually wrote down but the battle resulted in near enough equal casualties (uptowards 4,000 men each side) and a huge number of German machines knocked out. Considering the written goal was never achieved I take that this example, is a further example of fudged objectives etc?
But what made them decided to do this...
PS: I was assuming that Falkenhayn was the chap in charge in the west from your previous postings although i take it thats the wrong idea to have. Why would the entry of Rumania result in his sacking?
Isnt there a saying something along the lines of the best laid plans do not survive past first contact? So from what I can gather here if the actions that happen do not comply to the original plan or the written orders then it doesn’t matter what impact the battle had?glenn239 wrote:This whole discussion has been an exercise in altering the context of the original offensive from what it was to something that might better pass as a victory. Fudge the objective, fudge the consequences, exaggerate the impact upon the German army in relation to all the other casualties it took in the war, ignore the negative consequences to Britain - and presto! You have an argument for a British victory.The Somme was one of three offensives intended to bring about the long expected Entente victory.
I can think of two examples, unfortually due to my limited knowledge on this war they come from round 2, Rommel’s first offensive in Africa: his orders were to act defensively and hold the line, he decided to attack and recaptured Cyrenaica. I don’t know what to call that then?
But to be slightly more serious and look at an offensive – although nothing in comparison to the scale of the Somme – Operation Epsom; its objective was to evelope the French city of Caen but in this it failed. Its unspoken goal was to give the Germans a damn good thrashing and wear down the II SS Panzer Corps and ensure they stayed on the offensive. I don’t recall the last part being actually wrote down but the battle resulted in near enough equal casualties (uptowards 4,000 men each side) and a huge number of German machines knocked out. Considering the written goal was never achieved I take that this example, is a further example of fudged objectives etc?
- The_Enigma
- Member
- Posts: 2270
- Joined: 14 Oct 2007, 15:59
- Location: Cheshire, England
Re: " Bloody Victory: The Sacrifice on the Somme..."
Ah yes the massive numbers of American soldiers that entered the theatre during 1916 … oh wait! So I think Attrition’s point still stands what happened to Germany’s strategy to win the war in 1916?glenn239 wrote:Put a bullet in Rumania's head. Then Russia's. Then Italy. Then Greece. Then France. Then Britain.What happened to Germany's strategy for winning the war in 1916?
They were well on their way to doing so when the US rudely interrupted the party.
I have been studying this latter part in uni atm; what has actually shocked me is that Germany and the UK seemed to be growing closer together during the latter part of the 19th century. Both swapping raw materials needed to build the navies they wanted … although it did leave me wondering how much of this trade was still taking place when the arms race took off.chronos20th wrote:Yes, it was total victory at any cost, despite a negotiated peace being possible, and much of the actions of Russia being against British interests.
We did not spend most of the 19th century grooming the US. This was only from 1895.
Amazingly this was intended to reintergrate the US. financially into the British Empire.
No, what saddens me was that Britain was unable to compete, fell behind technologically and was unable to adopt new industries and technologies, in particular electricity, as they came along, and this is well documented.
It is also what lead to war.
Additionally its rather surprising to see how accommodating the British were to the Germans; Bismarck player our politians, from the looks of things, rather quite well to build his empire in the sun i.e. swooping in on “British intrests” in east Africa and then getting away with it!
I would suggest a look at the rather boring but very informative overview Europe 1880-1945 (something like that, I can give you the author and title later); if the United Kingdom wasn’t really a democracy she was much more free than the other great powers. Obviously none had complete universal suffrage however such ideas kicked up a fuss in central and eastern Europe. It may not have been perfect, and as the author of the book points out it could be hard to work within, but at least we could vote in popular governments.But in 1914 Britain was not really a democracy, as having been said, the lowest percentage per population franchise of all the Great Powers, whilst power was exercised by an elite or oligarchy, which made nonsense of the wartime propaganda slogan "Prussian autocracy".
The author of the above book makes the point that the Lords could hold up and fight bills but at the end of the day it was the elected commons that sorted everything out and got stuff through … eventually (i.e. the Ireland bill that was delayed so long it resulted in civil war).Britain could not be described as a democracy, both in the restricted franchise and power of the oligarchy.
It may have been hard but free elections were held for the commons.
However key overseas territories were allowed to govern themselves i.e. the dominions. I cant recall the specifics but I do remember reading something happening in India attempting to liberalise the people.Attrition wrote:Britain also controlled overseas territories where people were depived of even the limited rights that British subjects had which makes it a C19th liberal (i.e. proto-fascist) autocracy.
But at any rate the democracy is in regards to the motherland, which it was. Colonial polices seem to be very much the same – with varying degrees of brutality – throughout the main powers that do not reflect how they acted to their own people within their European borders … generally.
It can and it was. You need to look at context as well, the times etc. The men… the white men, were granted universal suffrage. While rather shocking from todays POV it does represent a radical move back then towards keeping the western world liberal and free unlike the other superpowers.'Democracy' cannot be reconciled with political inequality. Who didn't see it as incompatible? Black Americans? Women? Cherokee? Indians and Africans and Asians?
How can Christian free men decided to enslave and transport people from Africa? Because they believed it was ok and because the bible supported it (something to do with Sodomites iirc) Likewise the land of the free was created but still retained slavery. The western democracies took forever to grant universal suffrage to woman. It’s the duality of man. It is also breaking down centuries of tradition to incorporate – to some – radical changes.
Sorry ive gone on quite a bit replying to various bits and bobs and should really get back to work – again sorry for the long reply haha
Re: " Bloody Victory: The Sacrifice on the Somme..."
If there ever really was a 'Judaeo-Christian' society in Europe then slavery would always have been an anathema as well as an obscenity.
I don't think that 'context of the times' will wash when it comes to slavery because that would absolve the Germans enslaving people during the nazi dictatorship.
What can't be swept under the carpet by 'context of the times'? Wife beating? Child brides? Inflicting war on China to keep on trafficking opium? Massacring Cherokee people? Irish catholics? Iraqis? Abortion?
I don't think that 'context of the times' will wash when it comes to slavery because that would absolve the Germans enslaving people during the nazi dictatorship.
What can't be swept under the carpet by 'context of the times'? Wife beating? Child brides? Inflicting war on China to keep on trafficking opium? Massacring Cherokee people? Irish catholics? Iraqis? Abortion?
Re: " Bloody Victory: The Sacrifice on the Somme..."
The German strategy to win the war doesn’t count because the Americans bailed the Entente out?Ah yes the massive numbers of American soldiers that entered the theatre during 1916 … oh wait! So I think Attrition’s point still stands what happened to Germany’s strategy to win the war in 1916?
- Terry Duncan
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 6270
- Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
- Location: Kent
Re: " Bloody Victory: The Sacrifice on the Somme..."
As they lost by acting in the only way they concluded the war could be won, which involved the direct risk of war with the US, it is hard to conclude that the overall strategy to win the war was flawed, and that the strategy for 1916 was also flawed as it worked nowhere.
Re: " Bloody Victory: The Sacrifice on the Somme..."
As expedients go, upsetting the Yanks is one of the daftest.They don't like it. They don't like it at all.