The Somme
- Thread starter Aardvark154
- Start date
But deliberately, (not incidentally) burning and totally destroying medieval libraries, invading neutral territor etc. . . that was all OK?
While likewise I see you as someone who consistently trashes on the U.K, the Dominions as well as the U.S.A.
Look at your comments re: Operation Carthage aka the Shellhus raid.
Being against war and military intervention in other sovereign countries is completely in line with the charter of the UN. I am not anti any country. I am against war, and illegal military interventions. For your information, I have children that are American citizens and I have always been very fond of England. London is my favourite city in the world.
As far as the tragic raid on the Shell Hus, the point I made was only that the raid was poorly executed, as evident in that bombs fell far from the target and to wit on the French school. That is indisputable.
PS: I think it is a mistake to continue to revere battles and war. I was in Gallipoli and looked at the war monument; The inscription by Ataturk was one of the most moving I have seen. But I wished they had leveled the fields and built vacation condominiums over the area, so that the killing would be forgotten.
"Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives…
You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side here in this country of ours…
You, the mothers, who sent their sons from faraway countries wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace, after having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well."
Ataturk, 1934
IIRC, Germany asked for the right of passage through Belgium as a neutral country. Belgium refused, so they then became at war.
But is invading neutral territories any worse than invading countries who's politics you don't agree with? Such was the case with Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan. The Libyan bombing was a flagrant violation of Chapter 2 of the UN Charter:
"Article 2 (4) of the Charter prohibits the threat or use of force and calls on all Members to respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of other States".
In fact, since the UN came into existence, the US has invaded or subverted and overthrown the regimes of over 40 sovereign states.
Not a great example to follow. The invasion of Iraq resulted in over one million killed during the invasion, occupation and sectarian turmoil that ensued, culminating with the creation of ISIS. For a born again Christian, Dubya shure did a fine job in getting rid of most 1 million Christians remaining in Iraq in 2003. They're now doing the same in Syria to that country's 2 million Christians. A few million were killed during the Viet-nam war..... maybe these people would rather have continued to live rather than be liberated.
Haig may have disagreed with the timing, but he was notable for his push to keep the offensive up at all costs and after the war, was one of those who were accused of thinking so little for the lives of the soldiers under his command. He was one of the architects of the Battle of the Somme, so he bears this responsibility. Also notable in his tenure is the fact that he didn't like the political restrictions that he had to abide by in the use of Canadian troops, although he appreciated their abilities in battle. During the early part of the war, Canadian troops were used piecemeal, as reinforcements, but Canada pushed for their troops to be used en masse, as a corps.
Here's some good reading on the man and the battle.
http://www.warmuseum.ca/firstworldwar/history/people/generals/sir-douglas-haig/
http://www.historylearningsite.co.u...anders-of-world-war-one/general-douglas-haig/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...-Field-Marshal-Haig-a-hero-or-dunderhead.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/haig_douglas_general.shtml
http://spartacus-educational.com/FWWsomme.htm
However, as Andrew Roberts points out in his recently published Elegy: The First Day on the Somme as well as the following article in Smithsonian Magazine http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/bold-new-history-battle-somme-180959488/ Following the Somme, Haig launched a revolution in tactics and promoted officers who could implement them. Among these were the creeping barrage, the modern short rushes of infantry under covering fire and making the platoon rather than the company the principal unit in the attack. All of this lead to the German defeats in 1917: Arras, the Messine Ridge and Third Ypres.
Last edited:
That's a great article from the Smithsonian. The creeping barrage wasn't new and was used by the Bulgarians before the start of WW1 and from memory, used to its greatest effect by the CEF.
Haig was a former cavalry officer and his mindset was to be on the offensive, in big sweeping movements. He was ill suited to trench warfare, but that's not to say he didn't adapt, as he had to, but the cost of this was in the lives of the troops under him. Making command changes is nothing new, it happened in WW2 as well, when an officer who doesn't carry out his superiors orders or who is reluctant to take the necessary steps to follow through on the battle plan. Haig being who he was replaced officers who would not take the risks he thought were necessary to win the battle. This is not to say these officers weren't any good, it's just that they did not think that the battle plan and associated risks to their men's lives was worth following and they were probably searching for a better way to implement the battle plan, without risking as many of their soldiers lives. The first day of the battle shows this, as the loss in men was horrific.
While Haig may have adapted, many lives were lost in the meantime. It would be interesting to see how he finally saw the light on small unit tactics. I'm no expert on WW1, but I would hazard that this flowed up the chain of command and he or one of his immediate subordinates took credit for it, when in fact it was probably a company commander who figured this out, as most commanders never ventured anywhere near the front, leading from well behind the front lines.
Haig was a former cavalry officer and his mindset was to be on the offensive, in big sweeping movements. He was ill suited to trench warfare, but that's not to say he didn't adapt, as he had to, but the cost of this was in the lives of the troops under him. Making command changes is nothing new, it happened in WW2 as well, when an officer who doesn't carry out his superiors orders or who is reluctant to take the necessary steps to follow through on the battle plan. Haig being who he was replaced officers who would not take the risks he thought were necessary to win the battle. This is not to say these officers weren't any good, it's just that they did not think that the battle plan and associated risks to their men's lives was worth following and they were probably searching for a better way to implement the battle plan, without risking as many of their soldiers lives. The first day of the battle shows this, as the loss in men was horrific.
While Haig may have adapted, many lives were lost in the meantime. It would be interesting to see how he finally saw the light on small unit tactics. I'm no expert on WW1, but I would hazard that this flowed up the chain of command and he or one of his immediate subordinates took credit for it, when in fact it was probably a company commander who figured this out, as most commanders never ventured anywhere near the front, leading from well behind the front lines.
Took me a while to find this. Hawkeye disagrees with you, and I tend to agree with his observation.
^ The late Dr. H. Richard Hornberger, M.D., F.A.C.S. (the author of the largely biographical novel) HATED the television series.
He stated he had written an anti-bureaucratic novel which had been changed into a anti-military television series).
He stated he had written an anti-bureaucratic novel which had been changed into a anti-military television series).
Then you should stop glorifying it every chance you have. Or are you attempting to get preferential treatment when you get there, as you surely will being a lawyer.
I watch war movies that have some realism because I try to place myself in the combat soldier's boots, and reflect how lucky I am having been born during a period of time, and in a place where I didn't have to be drafted and sacrificed for some stupid jingoistic pretext, and undergo the constant fear of being killed, and ultimately experience a horrible death few people can imagine.
The glory in war applies only before you get there. Except if you're the generals and flunky staff officers who faithfully stood behind the fighting soldiers.... 30 miles behind the front lines, that is.
Yet during World War I, 78 British and Dominion General Officers were killed in Action while a further 146 were wounded or captured.
Further one of the problems for us in a number of battles in World War I was a lack of proper staff preparation, and one of the factors which made possible Canada's hundred days at the end of the war was the excellent staff and intelligence work of the Canadian Corps.
It has always been too easy for the politicians to get young and naïve kids to sign up for being cannon fodder. Remember Dieppe?
Ironically, I believe that we would be better off with a drafted military. It is too easy to send our professional soldiers to some country on the other side of the world to take part in some dubious "war" on terror. I do not think the politicians would get away with sending drafted men and women to Afghanistan.
Similar threads
