PDA

View Full Version : Good Morning...Allies punt after disastrous offensive series



Okla-homey
11/18/2010, 07:44 AM
Nov 18, 1916: Haig ends Battle of Somme

http://i844.photobucket.com/albums/ab7/Okla-homey/battle200px-Douglas_Haig.jpg
Douglas Haig. A Scot, he has been described as the greatest of Scottish generals, since he killed the highest number of English soldiers at any front in history, perhaps a slightly facetious point as Scotland in fact suffered one of the highest proportionate losses of any Allied nation.

94 years ago today, Douglas Haig, commander of the British Expeditionary Force in World War I, calls off the Battle of the Somme in France after nearly five months of mass slaughter.

http://i844.photobucket.com/albums/ab7/Okla-homey/battleWestern_Front_Somme_focus.jpg
Overview of the western front

The massive Allied offensive began at 7:30 a.m. on July 1, 1916, when 100,000 British soldiers poured out of their trenches and into no-man's-land. During the preceding week, 250,000 Allied shells had pounded German positions near the Somme River, and the British expected to find the way cleared for them. However, scores of heavy German machine guns had survived the artillery onslaught, and the invading infantry were massacred.

http://i844.photobucket.com/albums/ab7/Okla-homey/battle767px-Wiltshire_Regiment_Thiepval_7_August_1916.jpg
British infantry from The Wiltshire Regiment attacking near Thiepval, 7 August 1916, during the Battle of the Somme

By the end of the day, 20,000 British soldiers were dead and 40,000 wounded. It was the single heaviest day of casualties in British military history.

http://i844.photobucket.com/albums/ab7/Okla-homey/Battle793px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-R05148_Westfront_deutscher_Soldat.jpg
Young German soldier

After the initial disaster, Haig resigned himself to smaller but equally ineffectual advances, and more than 1,000 Allied lives were lost for every 100yards gained on the Germans.

http://i844.photobucket.com/albums/ab7/Okla-homey/Battle_of_the_Somme_1916_map.png

Even Britain's September 15 introduction of tanks into warfare for the first time in history failed to break the deadlock in the Battle of the Somme. In October, heavy rains turned the battlefield into a sea of mud, and on November 18 Haig called off the Somme offensive after more than four months of slaughter.

Except for its effect of diverting German troops from the Battle of Verdun, the offensive was a miserable disaster. It amounted to a total gain of just 125square miles for the Allies, with more than 600,000 British and French soldiers killed, wounded, or missing in action. German casualties were more than 650,000.

Although Haig was severely criticized for the costly battle, his willingness to commit massive amounts of men and resources to the stalemate along the western front eventually contributed to the collapse of an exhausted Germany in 1918.

TUSooner
11/18/2010, 08:58 AM
WWI was the saddest, most unnecessary, and most harmful war ever. It began over 19th century jingoism and stubborn national pride; its combination of 19th century tactics and 20th century weapons slaughtered the flower of an entire generation of European men, and all it accomplished was to sow the seeds for Hitler, Nazism, genocide, a Bolshevik Russia, truly global warfare, and atomic destruction.
Western civilization at its heart-breaking worst.
Yee haw.

SoonerProphet
11/18/2010, 09:39 AM
WWI was the saddest, most unnecessary, and most harmful war ever. It began over 19th century jingoism and stubborn national pride; its combination of 19th century tactics and 20th century weapons slaughtered the flower of an entire generation of European men, and all it accomplished was to sow the seeds for Hitler, Nazism, genocide, a Bolshevik Russia, truly global warfare, and atomic destruction.
Western civilization at its heart-breaking worst.
Yee haw.

Not to mention the likes of the Balfour Declaration, imperial Japan, the Treaty of Sèvres, and the list could go on.

Okla-homey
11/18/2010, 10:51 AM
WWI was the saddest, most unnecessary, and most harmful war ever. It began over 19th century jingoism and stubborn national pride; its combination of 19th century tactics and 20th century weapons slaughtered the flower of an entire generation of European men, and all it accomplished was to sow the seeds for Hitler, Nazism, genocide, a Bolshevik Russia, truly global warfare, and atomic destruction.
Western civilization at its heart-breaking worst.
Yee haw.

If you consider how it got rolling, it really was the early 20th century of nuclear war. The Austro-Hungarian Empire mobilized and declared war on Serbia. Russia and France mobilized because they had a mutual defense treaty with Serbia...and so it went.

The thing about mobilization, once it started, it couldn't be stopped until all troops were at the front. The whole process required call-ups of millions of reservists, commandeering of the national shipping and rail systems and strict timelines.

To stop short of all your bayonets at your nation's border was to invite disaster since a halt or rewind would mess up the whole process and deny you the ability to mobilze for at least a month while it was all reset -- meaning you would be defenseless. Hence, you rolled with it and attacked once the order to mobilize was issued.

SouthCarolinaSooner
11/18/2010, 05:54 PM
World War I was hilarious

TUSooner
11/18/2010, 06:17 PM
World War I was hilarious

Yeah, you're right. I don't know what I was thinking when I said it was a bad thing.







:eek:

Okla-homey
11/18/2010, 06:24 PM
Yeah, you're right. I don't know what I was thinking when I said it was a bad thing.







:eek:

in truth, those "Blackadder" episodes regarding WWI were pretty funny.

SouthCarolinaSooner
11/18/2010, 06:31 PM
Yeah, you're right. I don't know what I was thinking when I said it was a bad thing.







:eek:
I'm sorry, let me rephrase. "Commanding generals in World War I were hilariously stupid"

Leroy Lizard
11/18/2010, 09:18 PM
They had a good sense of humor too. Take Gallipoli...

sooneron
11/18/2010, 10:55 PM
Bois Sabot was B to the A.

TUSooner
11/19/2010, 09:53 AM
in truth, those "Blackadder" episodes regarding WWI were pretty funny.

I only saw a couple of those, but that's what I was thinking. Rather dark, though, as I recall.

XingTheRubicon
11/19/2010, 10:18 AM
Well, comparing civilian deaths and cities being destroyed, WWI was a pop-gun circus compared to WWII. WWII was for keeps.

Okla-homey
11/19/2010, 11:58 AM
Well, comparing civilian deaths and cities being destroyed, WWI was a pop-gun circus compared to WWII. WWII was for keeps.

Granted, WWII was horrible, but when 20% of a nation's male population between the ages of 17 and 29 are killed, and another 20% of that same demographic are permanently crippled, that's serious bidness. That was the case for Germany, Britain and France in WWI.

TUSooner
11/19/2010, 12:04 PM
Granted, WWII was horrible, but when 20% of a nation's male population between the ages of 17 and 29 are killed, and another 20% of that same demographic are permanently crippled, that's serious bidness. That was the case for Germany, Britain and France in WWI.

Word. Wanna get an idea of the WWI's effect? Read The Great War and Modern Memory bu Paul Fussell. I think I got the title and author right. It really takes all the fun out of the war.

XingTheRubicon
11/19/2010, 01:27 PM
Casualties in WW1

Germany 1,800,000
Soviet Union 1,700,000
France 1,385,000
Austria 1,200,000
Great Britain 947,000
Japan 800,000
Romania 750,000
Serbia 708,000
Italy 460,000
Turkey 325,000
Belgium 267,000
Greece 230,000
USA 137,000
Portugal 100,000
Canada 69,000
Bulgaria 88,000
Montenegro 50,000

TOTAL 11,016,000



Casualties in WW2

Soviet Union 25,568,000
China 11,324,000
Germany 7,060,000
Poland 6,850,000
Japan 1,806,000
Yugoslavia 1,700,000
Romania 985,000
France 810,000
Greece 520,000
USA 495,000
Austria 480,000
Italy 410,000
Great Britain 388,000
Holland 250,000
Belgium 85,000
Finland 79,000
Canada 42,000
India 36,000
Australia 29,000
Albania 28,000
Spain 22,000
Bulgaria 21,000
New Zealand 12,000
Norway 10,000
South Africa 9,000
Luxembourg 5,000
Denmark 4,000

TOTAL 59,028,000

MR2-Sooner86
11/19/2010, 01:29 PM
Casualties in WW1

Germany 1,800,000
Soviet Union 1,700,000
France 1,385,000
Austria 1,200,000
Great Britain 947,000
Japan 800,000
Romania 750,000
Serbia 708,000
Italy 460,000
Turkey 325,000
Belgium 267,000
Greece 230,000
USA 137,000
Portugal 100,000
Canada 69,000
Bulgaria 88,000
Montenegro 50,000

TOTAL 11,016,000



Casualties in WW2

Soviet Union 25,568,000
China 11,324,000
Germany 7,060,000
Poland 6,850,000
Japan 1,806,000
Yugoslavia 1,700,000
Romania 985,000
France 810,000
Greece 520,000
USA 495,000
Austria 480,000
Italy 410,000
Great Britain 388,000
Holland 250,000
Belgium 85,000
Finland 79,000
Canada 42,000
India 36,000
Australia 29,000
Albania 28,000
Spain 22,000
Bulgaria 21,000
New Zealand 12,000
Norway 10,000
South Africa 9,000
Luxembourg 5,000
Denmark 4,000

TOTAL 59,028,000

Is that soldiers or are civilian deaths included in that?

Harry Beanbag
11/19/2010, 01:42 PM
Is that soldiers or are civilian deaths included in that?


For WWII those numbers are total. Not sure about the WWI figures.

TUSooner
11/19/2010, 02:19 PM
As mentioned, part of the tragedy of WWI (and the idiotic Versailles Treaty thereafter) is that it set the table for WWII. So, you could argue that the casualties and slaughter of #2 are part of the cost of #1

MR2-Sooner86
11/19/2010, 02:52 PM
As mentioned, part of the tragedy of WWI (and the idiotic Versailles Treaty thereafter) is that it set the table for WWII. So, you could argue that the casualties and slaughter of #2 are part of the cost of #1

Then you can take it another step with the rise of Hitler, what happened to the Jews, the creation of Israel, and the problems in that area. We can also look at the rise of the U.S.S.R. and the fighting of Communism all over the world for nearly 50 years like Korea and Vietnam.

Okla-homey
11/21/2010, 05:01 PM
For WWII those numbers are total. Not sure about the WWI figures.

"Casualties" = KIA + WIA + MIA.

And I agree, the WWI combined military-civilian casualty figures are lower because there was no strategic bombing of cities worth mentioning in WWI.