British Prime Minister Lloyd George wrote, "The Canadians played a part of such distinction that thenceforward they were marked out as shock troops; for the remainder of the war they were brought along to head the assault in one great battle after another. Whenever the Germans found the Canadian Corps coming into the line they prepared for the worst."
British Prime Minister Lloyd George wrote, "The Canadians played a part of such distinction that thenceforward they were marked out as shock troops; for the remainder of the war they were brought along to head the assault in one great battle after another. Whenever the Germans found the Canadian Corps coming into the line they prepared for the worst."
a battle that shows how the so called upperclass brit generals used men as cannon fodder,,and from my point of view so many irishmen died for the greed of the brit empire when at home the brits held ireland by force of arms and caused ireland nthn but trouble,,the brit called men to fight ww1 for small nations freedom,,yet where was eire freedom?and so many other nations under the brit empire yoke,,DOUBLE STANDERDS,,also why is it they germans are clased as the bad ones and the brits the heros?
@aaronmcintosh26 no offense but Australia and new zealands contribution to the war made no difference to its outcome and your country's losses and troop numbers doesn't even compare to to that of Britain and France. also please provide evidence of every German saying they would rather fight the French and English over candadians and anzacs. you say our generals used these men as 'pigs' but these men were volunteers and chose to come over and fight for the mother country.
@ManicMammoth WWI was a war of attrition and Germany didn't have enough resources in the end. The country was getting nothing as the British had blocked off all there overseas supplies, while the allies were getting some resources through America. America entering the war gave the allies more in hope than in actual contribution. Germany also spent all their remaining resources on one more big push that failed, leaving them with nothing.
@rocketman8912 they had no other choice but to lose, Australia helped but ur trying to give them more credit than they are due. Australia was in the war from the beginning, and they were nothing special in terms of contribution. I actually know history, where as u know how to make it up
@rocketman8912 That's what happened. What's important is why this happened. Who sold who out. Who are the players behind the scenes that manipulate both sides for huge profits.
thank god for the australians, new zealanders and canadians. the captured germans said 'they would gladly fight the english and french, not the anzacs or canadians.'
funny comment. Its all for rating to suck the life out of the potato heads who try to pass it off as their own plagiarized thoughts who cannot comprehend what is going through these soldiers lives. I can't even imagine knowing the total terror one is thinking, knowing,when I stick my head up over that trench I am dead I hope we all pay our respects at your local cenotaph on Friday rain or shine and to hell with work
When you read about men "being cut down by a scythe" its because of the deadly machine gun crossfire or sometimes called interlocking fire. Many WWI vets say that the men were usually hit in the legs by the crossfire as they charged across no mans land.
I hope in world war 3 they could film all the event that shall take place. like this one so the next generation after the WW3 could learn the facts of war the cause and effect of it and say that war does not determine who is right - only who is left
@BalkanibalX Some say it was because the Germans had extended the Orient express to Basra and were therefore capable of direct import of oil....this just after England had shifted all her war machines from coal to oil. The British could/would not allow Germany this degree of access and control over Mideast Oil.
@BalkanibalX The root cause were the old aristocratic families. This same agenda is being carried out today in a different fashion. Both wars were designed to ravage europe to usher in, eventually, the world order of control. The League of Nations wasn't quite accepted by the masses so they had to do it again to push in their UN, which now basically tells countries what to do. Check out Local Agenda 21...coming to a town near you. In short, all was by design. In a word, Sick.
Why is it that people think they are arm-chair historians, and proceed to 'educate' others on things they've probably read up on Wikipedia?
Can't people just watch the video and remember those who gave their lives for us, and not feel the need to pretend to be military historians, and virtually end up arguing about who is best, the UK or the US?
@thefeuds I agree to to a degree, though some of us (like me) read history at University (in my case including a depth study on WW1) so perhaps have a reasonable to good understanding of some of the issues? However, you are right, the general level of debate on you tube is poor - but I suppose that is not surprising.
Do not forget the men from the colonies who propped up Britain and died alongside the Tommies - South Africa, India, New Zealand, Australia, Canada. Salute to you Grandad!
@joshwakeman 20,000 was the number of men killed in the first hour of the battle 58,000 was the total killed on the first day (common mistake) rest in peace to all those men who lost their lives
@TheTizerChief Sorry, that is incorrect. 20,000 killed on 1 July and 58,000 killed AND wounded in total on the first day. There is no evidence at all to support that 58,000 were killed on the first day - if you look in any detail (even Wikipedia) you will see this. In other words, of the almost 60,000 total casualties, 20,000 were killed (or presumed dead as missing because were never found).
at the end of the day,the kids that were sacrificed in this carnage, were actually murdered by the elites of that time,their reasons for war were financial and power based,the human waste meant nothing to them,war is putrid,and never the answer,period!
I'm reading lots of posts condemning the commanders for their use of tactics and strategy - my question is were there any commanders who fully understood the situation and devised tactics that would've taken into account the static nature of trench warfare using industrial machines? Hindsight is always 20/20. The only thing I can know for sure is that I'm not sure I would've been able to "Go Over The Top". I think I would've searched desperately for the nearest hole to curl up in.
@jakebarnes28 I don't think there were any Entente commanders who understood the new military status quo - but there should have been. The evidence from the American Civil War and the Russo-Japanese War plainly showed the new milieu to any who cared to see - but none really did.
@tehredmage he did say the only footage of soldiers falling in war ever..and the brits took 60,000 casualties that day",men going into action and some of them not coming back" what a wanker the guy is,,most of them were butchered,most didnt come back,,sloppy documentary,,
@tehredmage ,,,no worries,,i guess thats what he meant,,but it just kinda sticks out as,apparently the brits lost around 20,000 killed in action that day and around 40,000 wounded,sometimes they just say 60,000 casualties which misleads,so the guy was right in that respect,fascinating needless war,emperors with twirly moustaches playing a chess game with the lives of young men,it was nothing more,imperialism is such an evil thing,greed really.lets see what comes of the korea situation.
My Grandfather, an Aussie fought on The Somme and was wounded after two weeks fighting. Sent to Leeds hospital to recover, he went back as a medic and stayed till the end of the war.
People go to the trouble of downloading pieces of important history such as WW1 /2 etc in which people gave their young lives in their 100s of thousands and all you tubers can do is be disrespectful and make stupid comments . I wish you young idiots had an ounce of respect. I know one thing...no one posting or commenting on here could go through one day of what the lads in the trenches went through (and yes , all sides, before the pc arse holes start).. so sit back in your free world and think!
If you really want to know how it was like to be in the trenches do this:
Dig a hole in your back yard. "recruit" some kids in your neighborhood and tell them to bring slingshots. Tell your family to go to the attic or the second floor of your house and chuck books, pianos, and anything they can at you. Dig a long hole and tell the kids to shoot towards your hole. For protection, wear a bag on your chest and a metal bowl on your head. For better effect, pour water halfway in ur hole.
WOOT...NL Regiment FTW....It took balls to do what those men did. "Lions led by Donkeys" best describes this battle, the donkeys being the British officers that did a poor job in planning the offensive @ Beaumont-Hamel.
@zenoist2 The reson he was not promoted was because he was not a German citizen until 1932. He said he avoided promotion because he so enjoyed the close kinship of front line service. Twice awarded the Iron Cross as well, first and second class for bravery.
I caught a little bit of a show on National Geograpic Channel about this battle. I knew a little bit about it as I love studying history. What I didn't know was there were over one million combined casualties (combined English, French, German-Killed, wounded or missing) WOW! That's close to some of the totals for of Russia in WWII over a period of a couple of years. This offensive lasted a total of 4 months. Terrible human tragedy.
I think the statement "lions lead by donkeys" is an understatement. What you all have to remember is that the british and french were allies and so their commanders had to put their heads together to sort the situation. Unfortunately the french being their usual selves ( arrogant and demanding) was putting pressure on marshal haig to come up with a plan. And haig was getting pressured by both british offiicials and french.
The aim of the Somme offensive wasn't to "kill the cream of the German junior officers". It is an accidental side benefit in an extraordinarily costly failed offensive.
The aim was to relieve pressure from the French being bled dry on Verdun by a counter-attack on the German right flank. The problem was that the Germans had settled there for almost two years, having digged one of the most formidably developped German trench system on the Western Front.
My great grandfather fought in the Battle of the Somme - survived 'till he was 100 years old; I hope one day I'll be able to follow in his footsteps and join the British Army.
P.S. It pisses me off that the French still don't thank the British for helping them out during both WW1 & WWII. It's sad really...
When I referred to 8million men I was including British troops as well as those in the British empire.I am of course not stating that anyone higher than a lance was a donkey or believe people should fuck em as you so emphatically out it, I merely commented that it is no surprise the idea of lions led by donkeys caught on!! What is the percentage of deaths of men below the rank of lance?
The figure is only an estimate. Not that many men died. It was was a war that was started because of the ignorance the brittish and the german army men possessed.
After the butchery of Verdun , the butchery of the Somme :-(
RIP for all these guys died in this battle in the both camps allies and German
Never again war between us European brothers !!
BUT "the true story" th ?? lol
For the English-brits vision peraps...
BUT (because there is one but) usually we can see here like in all video about this batlle by one English the old untrue english propaganda about History...
2- Brits had more soldiers of his colonies from Canada, Australia, New-Zeland and India
3- If Brits + their colonies were the most numerous because this battle proceeded on the British front and not French front, brits used 26 divisions, BUT French used 15 divisions and lost also much more soldiers in this battle, few time after their butchery of Verdun
& even in the field of the Artillery, the French used more guns (light and heavy) than the Brits
But where are in all these videos about the battle made by the English propaganda, the tribute also for the French ?! (even if it's very hard since always for english to do it ^^)
That is the big problem for all lovers of the truth like me !!
Thus it is necessary like usually to point out the truth vs the old and perfidious untrue English propaganda which was very strong to make believe that they were the alone ones to have glory or to sacrifice itself
Always they did that, like for Waterloo by example, see my video on the truth about the Battle of Waterloo --> /watch?v=ev-wteEDjXU
@cumbas English soldiers made up the most of the British soldiers including the battle of Somme, There were british colonies that fought that day but not many compared to the numbers of the British and French.
i know that & it's not the subject of my message here
The subject is to denounce again & again the old perfidious untrue propaganda of English about History where always you want take for you only all the glory and the sacrifices by learning to the peoples your lies about the History
& here for example (but also about Waterloo like i said for other example), always when we see videos made by English about this battle we see only your soldiers like if you was alone to sacrifice yourself in this butchery of the Somme, but "LIES !!" like i said before...
to finish guy, i think i know perfectly the TRUE (her eis the difference) History of the WW1 since 33 years is one of my passion
See all my video about the WW1 in my playlist about it...
@cumbas I think you may find that the somme campaign was a british operation and hence why there is a lot of sentimental values towards this from us brits. remember that we try to relieve the pressure of your forces at verdun. As for waterloo it was us brits that was bearing the brunt of the french onslaught before the prussians showed up late.
1- If you want to speak about the true facts & the true History (I know, very hard for the roasbeef-minds especially if English dont have the nice role & the nice end ^^) you must to speak also for the battle of Somme of thousands of French soldiers who participated to this butchery...
Because I say again if Verdun this other big butchery few time before was support only by French, it is not the case in the Somme where French fought with you !
Ok Brits (& even not only true brits but also soldiers from Canada, New-Zealand, India, & Australia particulary) were the majority of the allieds forces during this battle but not the alone
& thus where are always the pictures and the videos about the French soldiers during the Somme in your english videos ?
ok you dont like French since 1066 lol and since this time you show only your untrue and shame propaganda vs them but in this case you dont dare to say that you speak about the true History !!!
2- The high-Chief-commandment of allied forces who decide of this butchery after this of Verdun was not a Brit but the French Marshall Joffre, high-chief of all allied forces in France ^^
ok here also your perfidious & untrue propaganda exist & has to make believe your liers (fortunatly for the truth now more Historian and guys like me denounce that)
& sorry but when one fight waiting in the top of an mountain in defense positions behind more guns & more protections vs an ennemies less numerous & one wait the arrival of 50000 allied Prussians I dont call that “actions of fight” but “actions of cowards” especially in this time :-)
@cumbas the french never invaded england mate....it was the normans, normans and french were different from each other. infact the normans hated the french and has done a lot more raids on french towns than anglo saxon ones. And as for the hundred years war we actually withdrew so that we can fight the war of the roses...plus u needed a mentally ill peasant girl to lead your armies...where as our armies were lead by warrior kings.
@matt2house """"the french never invaded england mate....it was the normans, normans and french were different from each other. infact the normans hated the french """""
So funny ! are serious man ? have you ever put a foot in France ?
@matt2house Normandy is french since a very long time, much more than Flandres, Artois, Dauphiné, region of Nice, Bourgogne, Alsace, Lorraine etc... And Normandy don't want another nationality nor independance. You can say France have some problems with Corse but what you say about Normandy is just totally wrong and stupid.
@Biloutemag How is that totally wrong and stupid?...that's just being arrogant. Firstly normandy wasnt french territory, it was a viking territory. Secondly Normandy was independent from france (and after duke william had conquered england it was under english rule) and became annexed in 1204 by king philip augustus. And if you still dont believe me then google the annexation of normandy 1204.
@matt2house Wow ! Please come back to your history book : "The fiefdom of Normandy was created for the Viking leader Rollo (also known as Robert of Normandy). Rollo had besieged Paris but in 911 entered vassalage to the king of the West Franks, Charles the Simple, through the Treaty of Saint Clair-sur-Epte. In exchange for his homage and fealty, Rollo legally gained the territory which he and his Viking allies had previously conquered.""
Since 911, the duke of Normandy is feal to french king !
@cumbas i never said I didnt like the french at all. I think you're taking this whole conversation the wrong way. And once more joffre only once commanded anglo french forces but he didnt do too well. And so british forces were resume under british command. Joffre might be a marshal but he was an average commander and he was soon replaced by general nivelle.
@cumbas I know it wasnt a british idea, it was a french idea but joffre was putting pressure on haig to form up a plan to carry the idea out seeing the french were having trouble at verdun. And so it became a british lead operation but french idea. And joffre was not commander of the allies he was C in C of the french forces only. And Haig at that time was C in C of the BEF.
@matt2house The idea for the Somme was British, Sir Henry Rawlinson picked the ground and wanted a limited offensive. It was Haig that tried to expand on the plan and go for a break thru. Haig didn't want to attack until late summer/ early fall., but was pressured by Joffre to attack ASAP. He really had no choice, the French were being butchered at Verdun, so the British needed to take some of the pressure offf of them.
@MrShaneVicious actually the idea for the somme was french but the battle plan was british. The French just wanted to quickly relieve the pressure at verdun but didnt have enough men to spare for the attack. So the responsibility fell on the british shoulders to do it for them seeing that were covering the french flank to the west.
@matt2house Which was a silly plan, really. The Germans were suffering as badly at Verdun as the French, and as time went on more and more British men and industrial capacity were being devoted to the war effort. Time was on the Entente's side. Militarily, the British (IMHO) should have just reinforced the French at Verdun and waited for their blockade of the Germans and the influx of men and materiel from Britain and the colonies to do their work. Not sexy, but workable.
@guysmiley00 hmmm yeah but then again, if the british diverted their reinforcements to verdun, then they wouldnt have enough manpower to hold the left flank of the western front. Plus the BEF werent big enough to support the french at verdun in anycase. The BEF was made up of six infantry divisions and a cavalry division plus some batteries. where as the french had bit more than that, don't know the exact number they had but I would imagine them having more divisions than the BEF.
@matt2house If the British didn't have the manpower to reinforce Verdun and hold the left flank, they certainly didn't have the manpower to throw 60 000 lives away in fruitless attacks. The small size of the BEF at the time is an argument for utilizing the advantages of the defensive, not against it.
@guysmiley00 the battle of the somme and the battle of verdun were two different situations. The french couldn't reinforce their position at verdun because they were pinned down.The british were licking their wounds after their six divisons were wiped out previously in the recent years (1914 - 1915). And the forces that took part in the somme offense were mainly new volunteers for kitcheners army and territorial regiments as well as dominion troops. So that is why they lost 60,000
@matt2house They lost 60 000 because the British commanders didn't plan for any contingency other than their best-case scenario of every single German defense and troop being wiped out by the artillery barrage, and so sent troops over at a walking pace, loaded down with additional gear - repeatedly.
2/3 of the French Army did travel along the road to Verdun during the battle, so I don't know what you mean by "pinned down".
@guysmiley00 As a matter of fact Rawlinson pressumed that the artillery barrage would severed the german lines, hoping the germans to be neutralised and that is why the soldiers were told to advance in walking pace rather running because they werent expecting any germans to be in their positions.
Secondly the french at verdun can't move at all, that is what I meant by being pinned down. ps there's a difference between "should've" and can't.
@matt2house The French at Verdun were in no way "pinned down" - in fact, one of the largest movements of men and materiel occurred during the Verdun siege. The Germans specifically chose Verdun not because the French couldn't retreat from it, but because they wouldn't.
As I said, the British lost so many troops because they never considered that their best-case scenario wouldn't pan out. I'm not sure why you're repeating that back to me, nor what you mean about "should've" v. "can't".
@guysmiley00 um yes they were, infact the germans attacked verdun because it was a bulge into their lines. The german motive was to attack the french because they wouldnt retreat and it was a matter of pride. Besides verdun was already reinforced.
@matt2house So, you're saying that the Germans did attack at Verdun because they knew the French wouldn't retreat, and not because they couldn't? That's exactly opposite to what you said earlier, and completely in agreement with what I asserted. Perhaps you should decide what you're trying to argue before posting?
@guysmiley00 No I said the germans attacked verdun because it was a bulge into their lines as well as a national pride in besieging the forts at verdun. Yes the german motive was to attack verdun because the french wouldnt retreat and therefore the aim for the germans was to seriously waste the french manpower through attrition. And the french had the same idea as well. so yes in a way i am agreeing with u on that note but not entirely.
PS I am basing my arguement on facts here not micky mouse
@matt2house You can't seem to grasp what "pinned down" means, or "best case scenario", and you keep throwing in bizarre, unrelated asides about "micky mouse" and "should've v. can't", and yet you think I'm the one with the comprehension problem?
No offense, but is English your first language? Your arguments are consistently disjointed and contradictory. Maybe you should try making one solid post instead of multiple shaky ones.
@guysmiley00 And there was no best case scenario at all (I still dont know why you persist with that) the british pinned their hopes on an ultimate breakthrough at the somme. Plus as I said before the fourth army were inexperienced and even the use of tanks was yet to be mastered. Which is one of reasons why they lost so many men. And the french were on the attack from verdun. however the british did gained some victories but in the end the campaign was halted by poor weather
guysmiley00 Dont forget the british had completely underestimated the germans since the first day of the somme. and they pinned their hopes on their 7 day artillery barrage to neutralize the german positions. also to note, the british had just recieved the anzacs and other dominion troops of who were inexperienced at war.
@MrShaneVicious There's really no reason the British couldn't have just reinforced the French at Verdun, except that everyone was still looking for the mythical breakthrough and quick victory.
@guysmiley00 There were many reasons. 1) They were already planning an offensive and the Somme was the ground they picked. 2) Verdun was a killing zone. 3) Command and Control. The French and British had separate commands 4) They needed to attack in a separate sector in order to spread German forces around and draw them away from Verdun the Somme attack at lest caused the Germans to halt the Verdun offensive 5) The French weren't in a position to go in a prolonged offensive.
@MrShaneVicious Most of your given reasons assume that an attack was necessary - and I can't see why that's so. An attack in a separate sector could draw German forces away from Verdun - but why would that be necessary? The Germans were suffering as badly at Verdun as the French, and it was the Germans who needed a breakthrough and a quick end to the war. British reinforcement could have accomplished the same goals without wasting so many lives on the offensive, I would think.
@cumbas the somme campaign was an allied effort. It was british planned and the french provided the manpower being that france is their home soil. The BEF was small in comaparison to the french forces. I say again the french were getting desperate for relief at verdun and General joffre was pressuring field marshal haig uncooperatively.
@cumbas it is the case of where the french fought with british mate....it is the case. But obviously this video is aimed at all the uk users on here andprobably all the commonwealth users too.
@cumbas the french were pressuring haig to make a quick offense somewhere else to relieve verdun. And the french being so desperate to push the germans out of france that they took part in the somme campaign willingly. On the other hand british and french commaders never really got on with each other which was their undoing. If the french werent so desperate and arrogant I think things would've started off on the right track.
@matt2house The French weren't "desperate" to remove the Germans - they were concerned about the rate of attrition at Verdun, given Germany's larger population and birthrate. But a general Allied offensive had already been planned for the year, before Verdun even began. The French did push Haig to move up the offensive, but Haig's plan was a disaster from the start - he was still fighting the Boer War, and dreaming of cavalry charges. The fault for Somme disaster lies at the feet of the Brits.
@guysmiley00 Germany's population and birthrates are irrelevent to the verdun seige. The Germans had plenty of reserves in flanders already and resources to throw at the french during the seige. The french wanted the german reserves to be diverted elsewhere in order to be relieved which was why haig and joffre agreed on a offensive campaign on the somme. And yes the french did push haig to move up the offensive
@matt2house Germany's population and birthrates are deeply relevant to all of WW1, including Verdun. Germany had more people, and more importantly more young men, than France, and had been widening the gap since 1870. This population gap drove German strategy - they sought to smash French resistance by weight of numbers before Russia or Britain could deploy large forces on the continent. Therefore, the Allied strategy should have been to exploit defense until they could bring numbers to bear.
@guysmiley00 France and Germany had exceptionally large populations than compared to britain or any of the dominion countries. But verdun isn't about the sizes of the population of both countries, it was a battle of long bitterness as well as national pride. yes the germans and french had their rivalries since the franco-prussian war prior. But as for Britain, they were naturally concerned with her navy and the seas more than her army. Besides her army was averagely small.
@guysmiley00 Yes the french did push haig to move up the schedule for the somme offense but much of the planning fell down to rawlinson and Major general montgomery. Plus Haig had good reasons to delay the offense until fresh new british / dominion divisions would arrive to form up the new fourth army
@cumbas You're taking this discussion out of proportion literally. The somme campaign was a french idea but the french brass wanted the british to actually lead it seeing that the french were being pinned down at verdun. The french commanders were even pressuring haig to come up with a strategy to put the idea to use. P.s I dont need roast beef to satisfy my needs so thanks for the derogative remark there.
@matt2house You're completely wrong here. Haig wanted a British attack in Flanders as part of an Allied offensive, but the French and British commands decided on a combined assault on either bank of the Somme instead. The Verdun attack weakened the French contribution to the offensive, and caused them to pressure Haig to move up the attack, but the whole disastrous strategy and tactics originated with and were embraced by the British. Attempting to blame the French is just flat-out wrong.
@guysmiley00 How am I wrong here? Haig wanted a breakthrough but still agreed to a combined offense because that is what he agreed to with joffre. Yes bulk of the forces were british but the other half were french. And the french at verdun can't move any more forces at all from there to contribute to the somme offense. only six french divisions were contributed. Plus the new British fourth army were new and most of their units were inexperienced or half trained. Hence the 60,000 lost
@matt2house You're wrong in insisting that the Somme offensive was a French idea - it was not. The Somme was a combined British/French decision, but the British were committed to an offensive regardless.
PS - you can't have both a "bulk" of forces and and additional "half". The arithmetic just don't work.
@guysmiley00 it was a french idea and I have looked up sources that proves it. The somme was the french choosing not the british. The only reason why the british (namely haig) agreed to a joint offensive operation was because that was the policy of both french & british governments, to conduct a joint allied offenses against germany. So both british and french commanders had to work with each other.
ps why dont u go away, look it up and tell me how many french and british divisions were there.
@matt2house The Somme Offensive was not a French idea per se. Rather, facing an onslaught at Verdun, the French pressed the British to open an offensive to relieve the beleaguered French forces. The British settled upon the Somme.
@guysmiley00 because I can tell you right now, that you're arguement is fragmented if you claim or if you think that having bulk of forces and an additional half doesnt work. because that how it actually happened during the actual campaign. so you go away and tell me how many british, dominion & french divisions were present at that time
@guysmiley00 I think he means that the location was of French choosing - ie. in Picardy rather than Flanders/Ypres, the latter favoured by Haig, but with Verdun taking the allies by surprise, it was of course felt that the Somme would better assist the French. But I agree - the decision to launch a major allied offensive was taken in Jan 1915 at the Chantilly Conference and britain was committed to this anyway, which was why the New Armies were raised.
Lions led by Donkeys sums the General Staff's attitude to the troops. My Grandfather, two of his brothers and my Grandmother's brother disappeared in the massacre at Anafarta Ova Gallipoli, 12. 8. 15.
'Dulce et decorum es pro patria mori' ? Slaughter !
theres a frequent tendency on our planet where masses of people congregate and kill one another. This is not uncommon and is quite glorified by all peoples of the earth.
Not by all people. It is usually glorified by the elites which profit from war. It is rich old men in suits and nice offices that ponder and declair war. It is young men that are shot and blown to bits...
Almost nobody knows that 78 British generals were killed in action during the war, and 146 wounded - a huge proportion in relation to their total numbers. The first was Gen N Findlay, Sept 1914, last was Gen J L Lipsett in Oct 1918.
And yet the "lions led by donkeys" myth fabricated by Alan Clark still prevails, it seems.
British & Empire generals suffered a casualty rate of 18.5% - more than any other rank other than Lieutenant (source "Bloody Red Tabs" by Maddocks & Davies). But hey, fuck them, they were only toffs - right? Upper-class people don't have friends, children or families...they just rented coal miners and matchstick girls for social engagements now and then, yeah? Your crude numbers "argument" doesn't make sense, unless you're willing to admit than anyone above lance-jack is a "donkey".
@beastatlay You seem to be forgetting the ranks of the enlisted men. The American infantry alone suffered about a 39% casualty rate, and one must imagine the rate to be higher among the European countries who had far higher total deaths than the US.
Why, exactly, do you think that the fact that some generals died changes how well they did their jobs, or that hundreds and thousands of lower-class grunts bought it with each of them?
It would seem there's a lot more to it. My guess is the film footage is German, but in which direction are we facing? There were many goings-on, on the hillside. The men (Germans?) in the foreground seem to be watching a skirmish. I don't think they're feigning attention. It's hard to tell exactly what unfolds either on the ridge top, or on the hillside. Although the action certainly appears to reflect all the adrenalin and confusion associated with a martial struggle.
Early on, where the older man says, "It's the real McCoy. They're moving forward, toward the German front lines." Play the sequence for approximately 5 seconds. Repeat. One can see muzzle flashes. In the black & white footage a soldier traversing down the hillside fires a shot, to viewer's left. Next footage; return fire from hillside. Men fall. Later, as narrator says, "The only way Robertshaw can prove it is to go to France." Same hillside, retreating soldier, shot(s) fired, viewer's right.
This has been flagged as spam show
British Prime Minister Lloyd George wrote, "The Canadians played a part of such distinction that thenceforward they were marked out as shock troops; for the remainder of the war they were brought along to head the assault in one great battle after another. Whenever the Germans found the Canadian Corps coming into the line they prepared for the worst."
insertclevernickname 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
British Prime Minister Lloyd George wrote, "The Canadians played a part of such distinction that thenceforward they were marked out as shock troops; for the remainder of the war they were brought along to head the assault in one great battle after another. Whenever the Germans found the Canadian Corps coming into the line they prepared for the worst."
insertclevernickname 4 days ago
awesome!!!
Pengi195 1 week ago
a battle that shows how the so called upperclass brit generals used men as cannon fodder,,and from my point of view so many irishmen died for the greed of the brit empire when at home the brits held ireland by force of arms and caused ireland nthn but trouble,,the brit called men to fight ww1 for small nations freedom,,yet where was eire freedom?and so many other nations under the brit empire yoke,,DOUBLE STANDERDS,,also why is it they germans are clased as the bad ones and the brits the heros?
PATRICKEIRE 2 weeks ago
I just learned that my great grandfather fought in world war 1
nonameleft4m3 2 weeks ago
@nonameleft4m3 with which unit?
kcirdrab 1 week ago
Comment removed
rocketman8912 1 month ago in playlist ww1 clips
Comment removed
rocketman8912 1 month ago in playlist ww1 clips
Comment removed
rocketman8912 1 month ago in playlist ww1 clips
Comment removed
rocketman8912 1 month ago in playlist ww1 clips
Comment removed
rocketman8912 1 month ago in playlist ww1 clips
the British won the war. the french were spent after Verdun so were close to mutiny and the Americans joined too late to make a difference.
ManicMammoth 1 month ago
@ManicMammoth looks up australia and new zealands involvement in the war. your generals used us like pigs but we didn't give up.
aaronmcintosh26 1 month ago
@aaronmcintosh26 no offense but Australia and new zealands contribution to the war made no difference to its outcome and your country's losses and troop numbers doesn't even compare to to that of Britain and France. also please provide evidence of every German saying they would rather fight the French and English over candadians and anzacs. you say our generals used these men as 'pigs' but these men were volunteers and chose to come over and fight for the mother country.
ManicMammoth 1 month ago
@ManicMammoth I'm not going to start to explain to you how wrong you are, but u are an idiot.
rocketman8912 1 month ago in playlist ww1 clips
@rocketman8912 i'm the idiot? you cant even explain yourself. fucking mong.
ManicMammoth 1 month ago
@ManicMammoth WWI was a war of attrition and Germany didn't have enough resources in the end. The country was getting nothing as the British had blocked off all there overseas supplies, while the allies were getting some resources through America. America entering the war gave the allies more in hope than in actual contribution. Germany also spent all their remaining resources on one more big push that failed, leaving them with nothing.
rocketman8912 4 weeks ago
@rocketman8912 they had no other choice but to lose, Australia helped but ur trying to give them more credit than they are due. Australia was in the war from the beginning, and they were nothing special in terms of contribution. I actually know history, where as u know how to make it up
rocketman8912 4 weeks ago
@rocketman8912 That's what happened. What's important is why this happened. Who sold who out. Who are the players behind the scenes that manipulate both sides for huge profits.
JacobBecomesIsrael2 2 weeks ago
thank god for the australians, new zealanders and canadians. the captured germans said 'they would gladly fight the english and french, not the anzacs or canadians.'
aaronmcintosh26 1 month ago
funny comment. Its all for rating to suck the life out of the potato heads who try to pass it off as their own plagiarized thoughts who cannot comprehend what is going through these soldiers lives. I can't even imagine knowing the total terror one is thinking, knowing,when I stick my head up over that trench I am dead I hope we all pay our respects at your local cenotaph on Friday rain or shine and to hell with work
educatedrock 2 months ago
@educatedrock Why would you want to stick your head up over the trench line and have a look? If you would you'd be blown away.
ernstbecker1 2 months ago
oh ffs people, stop with the one-up-manship, against the men who fought and died for us in this battle you look like silly bickering arses.
itshouldntbeallowed 2 months ago
@binarybloke asshole
TheSardinhadura 2 months ago
@binarybloke shut up you cunt
joshwakeman 2 months ago
Some people don’t like “arm-chair historians.” I think if you don’t like debating on YouTube, you don’t have a spine.
yakchirscarlson 4 months ago
The Battle of the Somme did not end in one day, it lasted 6 months, and the German army ended up retreating 40 miles to the Hindenburg line
dmax631 4 months ago
When you read about men "being cut down by a scythe" its because of the deadly machine gun crossfire or sometimes called interlocking fire. Many WWI vets say that the men were usually hit in the legs by the crossfire as they charged across no mans land.
Mu51ch3r3 4 months ago
I hope in world war 3 they could film all the event that shall take place. like this one so the next generation after the WW3 could learn the facts of war the cause and effect of it and say that war does not determine who is right - only who is left
zlambiara 5 months ago
Everybody speaks of the bloodshed, nobody speaks about the root causes. Why was there WW 1?
I know the trigger moment, I live close to Bosnia and Serbia, but what's the root cause?
BalkanibalX 5 months ago
@BalkanibalX Some say it was because the Germans had extended the Orient express to Basra and were therefore capable of direct import of oil....this just after England had shifted all her war machines from coal to oil. The British could/would not allow Germany this degree of access and control over Mideast Oil.
linelites 5 months ago
@linelites
I've heard the same argument. It's not spoken of much, but it does seem plausible
BalkanibalX 5 months ago
@BalkanibalX The root cause were the old aristocratic families. This same agenda is being carried out today in a different fashion. Both wars were designed to ravage europe to usher in, eventually, the world order of control. The League of Nations wasn't quite accepted by the masses so they had to do it again to push in their UN, which now basically tells countries what to do. Check out Local Agenda 21...coming to a town near you. In short, all was by design. In a word, Sick.
DextroMagi 4 months ago
Why is it that people think they are arm-chair historians, and proceed to 'educate' others on things they've probably read up on Wikipedia?
Can't people just watch the video and remember those who gave their lives for us, and not feel the need to pretend to be military historians, and virtually end up arguing about who is best, the UK or the US?
thefeuds 6 months ago 11
@thefeuds I agree to to a degree, though some of us (like me) read history at University (in my case including a depth study on WW1) so perhaps have a reasonable to good understanding of some of the issues? However, you are right, the general level of debate on you tube is poor - but I suppose that is not surprising.
THthefirst 5 months ago
@thefeuds
Glad you see it in such broad terms.
lightlittlebrownboy 4 months ago in playlist More videos from Kettch23
@thefeuds we can and may never forget what those youngsters and other soldiers have done for us.
Remember and respect them always with dignity.
Johan - Gent - Belgium
PeaceOfCupeCake 3 months ago
@thefeuds Because its more respectful to fully understand it. The closer to the truth, the better (and usually more interesting).
clearlogicify 2 months ago
Comment removed
rocketman8912 4 weeks ago
Do not forget the men from the colonies who propped up Britain and died alongside the Tommies - South Africa, India, New Zealand, Australia, Canada. Salute to you Grandad!
pommyknocker 7 months ago
@bobmarleyisgod1 They should have been
RussMoxham 7 months ago
20,000 British men in a single day... really does make you thing, never forget these men.
joshwakeman 7 months ago 9
@joshwakeman Most in the first hour, I think
RussMoxham 7 months ago
@joshwakeman 20,000 was the number of men killed in the first hour of the battle 58,000 was the total killed on the first day (common mistake) rest in peace to all those men who lost their lives
TheTizerChief 6 months ago in playlist The Battle Of The Somme - The True Story
@TheTizerChief Sorry, that is incorrect. 20,000 killed on 1 July and 58,000 killed AND wounded in total on the first day. There is no evidence at all to support that 58,000 were killed on the first day - if you look in any detail (even Wikipedia) you will see this. In other words, of the almost 60,000 total casualties, 20,000 were killed (or presumed dead as missing because were never found).
THthefirst 5 months ago
@joshwakeman already forgotten...England will soon look like a third-world country.
owenline 2 months ago
lol its funny how sophisticated the comments ares
TheBrosFlow 8 months ago
at the end of the day,the kids that were sacrificed in this carnage, were actually murdered by the elites of that time,their reasons for war were financial and power based,the human waste meant nothing to them,war is putrid,and never the answer,period!
baragentledragon 1 year ago
60000 British soldiers dead in three days !
Why ?
Coldgin94 1 year ago
I'm reading lots of posts condemning the commanders for their use of tactics and strategy - my question is were there any commanders who fully understood the situation and devised tactics that would've taken into account the static nature of trench warfare using industrial machines? Hindsight is always 20/20. The only thing I can know for sure is that I'm not sure I would've been able to "Go Over The Top". I think I would've searched desperately for the nearest hole to curl up in.
jakebarnes28 1 year ago
@jakebarnes28 I don't think there were any Entente commanders who understood the new military status quo - but there should have been. The evidence from the American Civil War and the Russo-Japanese War plainly showed the new milieu to any who cared to see - but none really did.
guysmiley00 1 year ago
reading the newspapers from ww1 now, are rather interresting
norwedgianawesomenes 1 year ago
what does he mean the first footage of men falling ,,hasnt he seen footage from the battle of stalingrad..???
andrewkenworthy 1 year ago
@andrewkenworthy Battle of the Somme = 1916
Stalingrad = 1941
tehredmage 1 year ago
@tehredmage he did say the only footage of soldiers falling in war ever..and the brits took 60,000 casualties that day",men going into action and some of them not coming back" what a wanker the guy is,,most of them were butchered,most didnt come back,,sloppy documentary,,
andrewkenworthy 1 year ago
@andrewkenworthy Ah, sorry. I heard "first"
tehredmage 1 year ago
@tehredmage ,,,no worries,,i guess thats what he meant,,but it just kinda sticks out as,apparently the brits lost around 20,000 killed in action that day and around 40,000 wounded,sometimes they just say 60,000 casualties which misleads,so the guy was right in that respect,fascinating needless war,emperors with twirly moustaches playing a chess game with the lives of young men,it was nothing more,imperialism is such an evil thing,greed really.lets see what comes of the korea situation.
andrewkenworthy 1 year ago
@andrewkenworthy Stalingrad was in 1942/43. The Battle of the Somme was in 1916
MrShaneVicious 1 year ago
20.000 where did he get that figure from,,it was 60,000 british fell on that day...
andrewkenworthy 1 year ago
My Grandfather, an Aussie fought on The Somme and was wounded after two weeks fighting. Sent to Leeds hospital to recover, he went back as a medic and stayed till the end of the war.
ninyae 1 year ago
People go to the trouble of downloading pieces of important history such as WW1 /2 etc in which people gave their young lives in their 100s of thousands and all you tubers can do is be disrespectful and make stupid comments . I wish you young idiots had an ounce of respect. I know one thing...no one posting or commenting on here could go through one day of what the lads in the trenches went through (and yes , all sides, before the pc arse holes start).. so sit back in your free world and think!
scoobiedp 1 year ago 2
The brittish canadians and the aussies and new zealanders lost 650 000 when the battle was over
1988scottcarey 1 year ago
A bayonet is a weapon with a working man at either end.
sparky2086 1 year ago
If you really want to know how it was like to be in the trenches do this:
Dig a hole in your back yard. "recruit" some kids in your neighborhood and tell them to bring slingshots. Tell your family to go to the attic or the second floor of your house and chuck books, pianos, and anything they can at you. Dig a long hole and tell the kids to shoot towards your hole. For protection, wear a bag on your chest and a metal bowl on your head. For better effect, pour water halfway in ur hole.
LordSauron219 1 year ago
@LordSauron219 even that doesn't portray the horrors of the trenches.Thank God we will never know
mensa29 1 year ago
There is a brilliant documentary By gordan Corrigan which is pro General and the true story. Have you got it or do you know what it is called.
SirOneoneselfandone 1 year ago
over 57000 British soldiers were killed.
capnhands 1 year ago
Kids playing at war, a joke.
Imagine 20K corpses for no reason
reece45 1 year ago
Hmm yes he was Austrian and Jewish by birth.
zenoist2 1 year ago
why does everybody talk about the allied perspective of this battle and not the german?
Andiish08 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Andiish08 "why does everybody talk about the allied perspective of this battle and not the german?"
Because as sad & terrable as this story is the German perspective is even more sad & terrable. How much heart break can the human soul endure?
Eddythebeast666 1 year ago
WOOT...NL Regiment FTW....It took balls to do what those men did. "Lions led by Donkeys" best describes this battle, the donkeys being the British officers that did a poor job in planning the offensive @ Beaumont-Hamel.
Rayman304 1 year ago
The highest military rank Hitler achieved in WW1 was corporal.
He wasnt exactly a military genius.
zenoist2 1 year ago
@zenoist2 The reson he was not promoted was because he was not a German citizen until 1932. He said he avoided promotion because he so enjoyed the close kinship of front line service. Twice awarded the Iron Cross as well, first and second class for bravery.
naltrexone23X 1 year ago
@Flashproducties Wowwee,think of how the world would have been if he had had his chips,oh well,got them in the end,anyway cheers
tiedupsmurf 1 year ago
@Flashproducties so if he had been killed at the Somme,we would not have had WW2? Much to the pity
tiedupsmurf 1 year ago
I caught a little bit of a show on National Geograpic Channel about this battle. I knew a little bit about it as I love studying history. What I didn't know was there were over one million combined casualties (combined English, French, German-Killed, wounded or missing) WOW! That's close to some of the totals for of Russia in WWII over a period of a couple of years. This offensive lasted a total of 4 months. Terrible human tragedy.
TheDrummerRon 1 year ago
uvf forever
garethj477 1 year ago
I think the statement "lions lead by donkeys" is an understatement. What you all have to remember is that the british and french were allies and so their commanders had to put their heads together to sort the situation. Unfortunately the french being their usual selves ( arrogant and demanding) was putting pressure on marshal haig to come up with a plan. And haig was getting pressured by both british offiicials and french.
matt2house 1 year ago
The aim of the Somme offensive wasn't to "kill the cream of the German junior officers". It is an accidental side benefit in an extraordinarily costly failed offensive.
The aim was to relieve pressure from the French being bled dry on Verdun by a counter-attack on the German right flank. The problem was that the Germans had settled there for almost two years, having digged one of the most formidably developped German trench system on the Western Front.
Drakken682 1 year ago
My great grandfather fought in the Battle of the Somme - survived 'till he was 100 years old; I hope one day I'll be able to follow in his footsteps and join the British Army.
P.S. It pisses me off that the French still don't thank the British for helping them out during both WW1 & WWII. It's sad really...
SAFC442 1 year ago
@ beastatlay
When I referred to 8million men I was including British troops as well as those in the British empire.I am of course not stating that anyone higher than a lance was a donkey or believe people should fuck em as you so emphatically out it, I merely commented that it is no surprise the idea of lions led by donkeys caught on!! What is the percentage of deaths of men below the rank of lance?
1986emj 1 year ago
The figure is only an estimate. Not that many men died. It was was a war that was started because of the ignorance the brittish and the german army men possessed.
07853355256 1 year ago
After the butchery of Verdun , the butchery of the Somme :-(
RIP for all these guys died in this battle in the both camps allies and German
Never again war between us European brothers !!
BUT "the true story" th ?? lol
For the English-brits vision peraps...
BUT (because there is one but) usually we can see here like in all video about this batlle by one English the old untrue english propaganda about History...
I explain it :
cumbas 1 year ago
If we see all the videos about this battle of the Somme, we can know that it was only between Brits vs German...
LIES !
If Verdun yes was just between the French Army and the German Army its not the case for the Somme
...
cumbas 1 year ago
1- It was Brits + French vs German
2- Brits had more soldiers of his colonies from Canada, Australia, New-Zeland and India
3- If Brits + their colonies were the most numerous because this battle proceeded on the British front and not French front, brits used 26 divisions, BUT French used 15 divisions and lost also much more soldiers in this battle, few time after their butchery of Verdun
& even in the field of the Artillery, the French used more guns (light and heavy) than the Brits
...
cumbas 1 year ago
But where are in all these videos about the battle made by the English propaganda, the tribute also for the French ?! (even if it's very hard since always for english to do it ^^)
That is the big problem for all lovers of the truth like me !!
cumbas 1 year ago
What let us see and believe seeing all the videos made by the old & eternal English propaganda ?
English or brits like if they had been alone to sacrifice itself in this battle in the camps of allied
BUT NO !
French also few time after their big sacrifices in Verdun (and them alone) also were sacrificed in a great number in the Somme
...
cumbas 1 year ago
Thus it is necessary like usually to point out the truth vs the old and perfidious untrue English propaganda which was very strong to make believe that they were the alone ones to have glory or to sacrifice itself
Always they did that, like for Waterloo by example, see my video on the truth about the Battle of Waterloo --> /watch?v=ev-wteEDjXU
...
cumbas 1 year ago
& the number of deaths for the allies in the end of this butchery WW1 proove that i say :
- Brits + his colonies (Canada, Australia, NZ & India) : 960.000 soldiers died (tribute to their memories of course, it is not the problem here)
- French : 1.700.000 soldiers died (tribute to their memories)
cumbas 1 year ago
@cumbas English soldiers made up the most of the British soldiers including the battle of Somme, There were british colonies that fought that day but not many compared to the numbers of the British and French.
mcrudeboi123456789 1 year ago
@mcrudeboi123456789
...
i know that & it's not the subject of my message here
The subject is to denounce again & again the old perfidious untrue propaganda of English about History where always you want take for you only all the glory and the sacrifices by learning to the peoples your lies about the History
...
cumbas 1 year ago
& here for example (but also about Waterloo like i said for other example), always when we see videos made by English about this battle we see only your soldiers like if you was alone to sacrifice yourself in this butchery of the Somme, but "LIES !!" like i said before...
to finish guy, i think i know perfectly the TRUE (her eis the difference) History of the WW1 since 33 years is one of my passion
See all my video about the WW1 in my playlist about it...
cumbas 1 year ago
@cumbas I think you may find that the somme campaign was a british operation and hence why there is a lot of sentimental values towards this from us brits. remember that we try to relieve the pressure of your forces at verdun. As for waterloo it was us brits that was bearing the brunt of the french onslaught before the prussians showed up late.
matt2house 1 year ago
@matt2house
1a)
In this case I learn you unscholar guy that :
1- If you want to speak about the true facts & the true History (I know, very hard for the roasbeef-minds especially if English dont have the nice role & the nice end ^^) you must to speak also for the battle of Somme of thousands of French soldiers who participated to this butchery...
cumbas 1 year ago
2a)
Because I say again if Verdun this other big butchery few time before was support only by French, it is not the case in the Somme where French fought with you !
Ok Brits (& even not only true brits but also soldiers from Canada, New-Zealand, India, & Australia particulary) were the majority of the allieds forces during this battle but not the alone
& thus where are always the pictures and the videos about the French soldiers during the Somme in your english videos ?
nowhere...
cumbas 1 year ago
3a)
ok you dont like French since 1066 lol and since this time you show only your untrue and shame propaganda vs them but in this case you dont dare to say that you speak about the true History !!!
2- The high-Chief-commandment of allied forces who decide of this butchery after this of Verdun was not a Brit but the French Marshall Joffre, high-chief of all allied forces in France ^^
cumbas 1 year ago
4a)
& lol why do you speak about Waterloo ?
ok here also your perfidious & untrue propaganda exist & has to make believe your liers (fortunatly for the truth now more Historian and guys like me denounce that)
& sorry but when one fight waiting in the top of an mountain in defense positions behind more guns & more protections vs an ennemies less numerous & one wait the arrival of 50000 allied Prussians I dont call that “actions of fight” but “actions of cowards” especially in this time :-)
cumbas 1 year ago
5a-end)
But it is not the subject here no ?
Because in this case I can speak about the French Invasion of England in 1066 or about your defeat in the 1 Hundred War :-)
NO of course it is the battle of Somme here & RIP for all deaths of the German, French & Brits Armies willebe my last words with you
cumbas 1 year ago
@cumbas the french never invaded england mate....it was the normans, normans and french were different from each other. infact the normans hated the french and has done a lot more raids on french towns than anglo saxon ones. And as for the hundred years war we actually withdrew so that we can fight the war of the roses...plus u needed a mentally ill peasant girl to lead your armies...where as our armies were lead by warrior kings.
matt2house 1 year ago
@matt2house *led by*
matt2house 1 year ago
@matt2house """"the french never invaded england mate....it was the normans, normans and french were different from each other. infact the normans hated the french """""
So funny ! are serious man ? have you ever put a foot in France ?
Biloutemag 1 year ago
@Biloutemag normandy wasnt annexed until 1204 but king phillip II augustus. So yes I am serious mate......very serious about that fact.
matt2house 1 year ago
@matt2house Normandy is french since a very long time, much more than Flandres, Artois, Dauphiné, region of Nice, Bourgogne, Alsace, Lorraine etc... And Normandy don't want another nationality nor independance. You can say France have some problems with Corse but what you say about Normandy is just totally wrong and stupid.
Biloutemag 1 year ago
@Biloutemag How is that totally wrong and stupid?...that's just being arrogant. Firstly normandy wasnt french territory, it was a viking territory. Secondly Normandy was independent from france (and after duke william had conquered england it was under english rule) and became annexed in 1204 by king philip augustus. And if you still dont believe me then google the annexation of normandy 1204.
matt2house 1 year ago
@matt2house Wow ! Please come back to your history book : "The fiefdom of Normandy was created for the Viking leader Rollo (also known as Robert of Normandy). Rollo had besieged Paris but in 911 entered vassalage to the king of the West Franks, Charles the Simple, through the Treaty of Saint Clair-sur-Epte. In exchange for his homage and fealty, Rollo legally gained the territory which he and his Viking allies had previously conquered.""
Since 911, the duke of Normandy is feal to french king !
Biloutemag 1 year ago
@matt2house end : """As early as 486, the area between the River Somme and the River Loire came under the control of the Frankish lord Clovis"""
Clovis is one of the first king of Francs and the first to become catholic.
As you see, Normandie territory is french since the beginning.
When you say Normands hate French that mean absolutly nothing exactly the same as if I say Londoners hate Englih people !
Biloutemag 1 year ago
@cumbas why did I spoke about waterloo?....because you speaked about waterloo...that's why......confused?
matt2house 1 year ago
@cumbas i never said I didnt like the french at all. I think you're taking this whole conversation the wrong way. And once more joffre only once commanded anglo french forces but he didnt do too well. And so british forces were resume under british command. Joffre might be a marshal but he was an average commander and he was soon replaced by general nivelle.
matt2house 1 year ago
@cumbas I know it wasnt a british idea, it was a french idea but joffre was putting pressure on haig to form up a plan to carry the idea out seeing the french were having trouble at verdun. And so it became a british lead operation but french idea. And joffre was not commander of the allies he was C in C of the french forces only. And Haig at that time was C in C of the BEF.
matt2house 1 year ago
@matt2house The idea for the Somme was British, Sir Henry Rawlinson picked the ground and wanted a limited offensive. It was Haig that tried to expand on the plan and go for a break thru. Haig didn't want to attack until late summer/ early fall., but was pressured by Joffre to attack ASAP. He really had no choice, the French were being butchered at Verdun, so the British needed to take some of the pressure offf of them.
MrShaneVicious 1 year ago
@MrShaneVicious actually the idea for the somme was french but the battle plan was british. The French just wanted to quickly relieve the pressure at verdun but didnt have enough men to spare for the attack. So the responsibility fell on the british shoulders to do it for them seeing that were covering the french flank to the west.
matt2house 1 year ago
@matt2house Which was a silly plan, really. The Germans were suffering as badly at Verdun as the French, and as time went on more and more British men and industrial capacity were being devoted to the war effort. Time was on the Entente's side. Militarily, the British (IMHO) should have just reinforced the French at Verdun and waited for their blockade of the Germans and the influx of men and materiel from Britain and the colonies to do their work. Not sexy, but workable.
guysmiley00 1 year ago
@guysmiley00 hmmm yeah but then again, if the british diverted their reinforcements to verdun, then they wouldnt have enough manpower to hold the left flank of the western front. Plus the BEF werent big enough to support the french at verdun in anycase. The BEF was made up of six infantry divisions and a cavalry division plus some batteries. where as the french had bit more than that, don't know the exact number they had but I would imagine them having more divisions than the BEF.
matt2house 1 year ago
@matt2house If the British didn't have the manpower to reinforce Verdun and hold the left flank, they certainly didn't have the manpower to throw 60 000 lives away in fruitless attacks. The small size of the BEF at the time is an argument for utilizing the advantages of the defensive, not against it.
guysmiley00 11 months ago
Comment removed
matt2house 11 months ago
Comment removed
matt2house 11 months ago
The british fourth army was a new army because it was recently formed up prior to the offensive campaign.
matt2house 11 months ago
@guysmiley00 the battle of the somme and the battle of verdun were two different situations. The french couldn't reinforce their position at verdun because they were pinned down.The british were licking their wounds after their six divisons were wiped out previously in the recent years (1914 - 1915). And the forces that took part in the somme offense were mainly new volunteers for kitcheners army and territorial regiments as well as dominion troops. So that is why they lost 60,000
matt2house 11 months ago
@matt2house They lost 60 000 because the British commanders didn't plan for any contingency other than their best-case scenario of every single German defense and troop being wiped out by the artillery barrage, and so sent troops over at a walking pace, loaded down with additional gear - repeatedly.
2/3 of the French Army did travel along the road to Verdun during the battle, so I don't know what you mean by "pinned down".
guysmiley00 11 months ago
Comment removed
matt2house 11 months ago
@guysmiley00 As a matter of fact Rawlinson pressumed that the artillery barrage would severed the german lines, hoping the germans to be neutralised and that is why the soldiers were told to advance in walking pace rather running because they werent expecting any germans to be in their positions.
Secondly the french at verdun can't move at all, that is what I meant by being pinned down. ps there's a difference between "should've" and can't.
matt2house 11 months ago
@matt2house The French at Verdun were in no way "pinned down" - in fact, one of the largest movements of men and materiel occurred during the Verdun siege. The Germans specifically chose Verdun not because the French couldn't retreat from it, but because they wouldn't.
As I said, the British lost so many troops because they never considered that their best-case scenario wouldn't pan out. I'm not sure why you're repeating that back to me, nor what you mean about "should've" v. "can't".
guysmiley00 11 months ago
@guysmiley00 um yes they were, infact the germans attacked verdun because it was a bulge into their lines. The german motive was to attack the french because they wouldnt retreat and it was a matter of pride. Besides verdun was already reinforced.
matt2house 11 months ago
@matt2house So, you're saying that the Germans did attack at Verdun because they knew the French wouldn't retreat, and not because they couldn't? That's exactly opposite to what you said earlier, and completely in agreement with what I asserted. Perhaps you should decide what you're trying to argue before posting?
guysmiley00 11 months ago
@guysmiley00 No I said the germans attacked verdun because it was a bulge into their lines as well as a national pride in besieging the forts at verdun. Yes the german motive was to attack verdun because the french wouldnt retreat and therefore the aim for the germans was to seriously waste the french manpower through attrition. And the french had the same idea as well. so yes in a way i am agreeing with u on that note but not entirely.
PS I am basing my arguement on facts here not micky mouse
matt2house 11 months ago
Comment removed
matt2house 11 months ago
Comment removed
matt2house 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@guysimley00 ps if you still can't understand what I'm saying well then it's not my fault if you can't understand at all.
matt2house 11 months ago
@matt2house You can't seem to grasp what "pinned down" means, or "best case scenario", and you keep throwing in bizarre, unrelated asides about "micky mouse" and "should've v. can't", and yet you think I'm the one with the comprehension problem?
No offense, but is English your first language? Your arguments are consistently disjointed and contradictory. Maybe you should try making one solid post instead of multiple shaky ones.
guysmiley00 10 months ago
@guysmiley00 And there was no best case scenario at all (I still dont know why you persist with that) the british pinned their hopes on an ultimate breakthrough at the somme. Plus as I said before the fourth army were inexperienced and even the use of tanks was yet to be mastered. Which is one of reasons why they lost so many men. And the french were on the attack from verdun. however the british did gained some victories but in the end the campaign was halted by poor weather
matt2house 11 months ago
guysmiley00 Dont forget the british had completely underestimated the germans since the first day of the somme. and they pinned their hopes on their 7 day artillery barrage to neutralize the german positions. also to note, the british had just recieved the anzacs and other dominion troops of who were inexperienced at war.
matt2house 11 months ago
@MrShaneVicious There's really no reason the British couldn't have just reinforced the French at Verdun, except that everyone was still looking for the mythical breakthrough and quick victory.
guysmiley00 1 year ago
@guysmiley00 There were many reasons. 1) They were already planning an offensive and the Somme was the ground they picked. 2) Verdun was a killing zone. 3) Command and Control. The French and British had separate commands 4) They needed to attack in a separate sector in order to spread German forces around and draw them away from Verdun the Somme attack at lest caused the Germans to halt the Verdun offensive 5) The French weren't in a position to go in a prolonged offensive.
MrShaneVicious 11 months ago
@MrShaneVicious Most of your given reasons assume that an attack was necessary - and I can't see why that's so. An attack in a separate sector could draw German forces away from Verdun - but why would that be necessary? The Germans were suffering as badly at Verdun as the French, and it was the Germans who needed a breakthrough and a quick end to the war. British reinforcement could have accomplished the same goals without wasting so many lives on the offensive, I would think.
guysmiley00 11 months ago
@cumbas the somme campaign was an allied effort. It was british planned and the french provided the manpower being that france is their home soil. The BEF was small in comaparison to the french forces. I say again the french were getting desperate for relief at verdun and General joffre was pressuring field marshal haig uncooperatively.
matt2house 1 year ago
@cumbas it is the case of where the french fought with british mate....it is the case. But obviously this video is aimed at all the uk users on here andprobably all the commonwealth users too.
matt2house 1 year ago
@cumbas the french were pressuring haig to make a quick offense somewhere else to relieve verdun. And the french being so desperate to push the germans out of france that they took part in the somme campaign willingly. On the other hand british and french commaders never really got on with each other which was their undoing. If the french werent so desperate and arrogant I think things would've started off on the right track.
matt2house 1 year ago
@matt2house The French weren't "desperate" to remove the Germans - they were concerned about the rate of attrition at Verdun, given Germany's larger population and birthrate. But a general Allied offensive had already been planned for the year, before Verdun even began. The French did push Haig to move up the offensive, but Haig's plan was a disaster from the start - he was still fighting the Boer War, and dreaming of cavalry charges. The fault for Somme disaster lies at the feet of the Brits.
guysmiley00 11 months ago
@guysmiley00 Germany's population and birthrates are irrelevent to the verdun seige. The Germans had plenty of reserves in flanders already and resources to throw at the french during the seige. The french wanted the german reserves to be diverted elsewhere in order to be relieved which was why haig and joffre agreed on a offensive campaign on the somme. And yes the french did push haig to move up the offensive
matt2house 11 months ago
@matt2house Germany's population and birthrates are deeply relevant to all of WW1, including Verdun. Germany had more people, and more importantly more young men, than France, and had been widening the gap since 1870. This population gap drove German strategy - they sought to smash French resistance by weight of numbers before Russia or Britain could deploy large forces on the continent. Therefore, the Allied strategy should have been to exploit defense until they could bring numbers to bear.
guysmiley00 11 months ago
@guysmiley00 France and Germany had exceptionally large populations than compared to britain or any of the dominion countries. But verdun isn't about the sizes of the population of both countries, it was a battle of long bitterness as well as national pride. yes the germans and french had their rivalries since the franco-prussian war prior. But as for Britain, they were naturally concerned with her navy and the seas more than her army. Besides her army was averagely small.
matt2house 11 months ago
@matt2house
"France and Germany had exceptionally large populations than compared to britain or any of the dominion countries"
Are you sure?????
German population in 1914: 65 millions
French population: 39 millions
British population: 45 millions (British Empire: 450 millions)
Freez57fr 1 week ago
@guysmiley00 as for russia, they were already at war with germany before france or britain even declared war on them
matt2house 11 months ago
Comment removed
matt2house 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@guysmiley00 Yes the french did push haig to move up the schedule for the somme offense but much of the planning fell down to rawlinson and Major general montgomery. Plus Haig had good reasons to delay the offense until fresh new british / dominion divisions would arrive to form up the new fourth army
matt2house 11 months ago
@cumbas You're taking this discussion out of proportion literally. The somme campaign was a french idea but the french brass wanted the british to actually lead it seeing that the french were being pinned down at verdun. The french commanders were even pressuring haig to come up with a strategy to put the idea to use. P.s I dont need roast beef to satisfy my needs so thanks for the derogative remark there.
matt2house 1 year ago
@matt2house You're completely wrong here. Haig wanted a British attack in Flanders as part of an Allied offensive, but the French and British commands decided on a combined assault on either bank of the Somme instead. The Verdun attack weakened the French contribution to the offensive, and caused them to pressure Haig to move up the attack, but the whole disastrous strategy and tactics originated with and were embraced by the British. Attempting to blame the French is just flat-out wrong.
guysmiley00 11 months ago
@guysmiley00 How am I wrong here? Haig wanted a breakthrough but still agreed to a combined offense because that is what he agreed to with joffre. Yes bulk of the forces were british but the other half were french. And the french at verdun can't move any more forces at all from there to contribute to the somme offense. only six french divisions were contributed. Plus the new British fourth army were new and most of their units were inexperienced or half trained. Hence the 60,000 lost
matt2house 11 months ago
@matt2house You're wrong in insisting that the Somme offensive was a French idea - it was not. The Somme was a combined British/French decision, but the British were committed to an offensive regardless.
PS - you can't have both a "bulk" of forces and and additional "half". The arithmetic just don't work.
guysmiley00 11 months ago
@guysmiley00 it was a french idea and I have looked up sources that proves it. The somme was the french choosing not the british. The only reason why the british (namely haig) agreed to a joint offensive operation was because that was the policy of both french & british governments, to conduct a joint allied offenses against germany. So both british and french commanders had to work with each other.
ps why dont u go away, look it up and tell me how many french and british divisions were there.
matt2house 11 months ago
@matt2house The Somme Offensive was not a French idea per se. Rather, facing an onslaught at Verdun, the French pressed the British to open an offensive to relieve the beleaguered French forces. The British settled upon the Somme.
browsfan 9 months ago
Comment removed
matt2house 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@guysmiley00 because I can tell you right now, that you're arguement is fragmented if you claim or if you think that having bulk of forces and an additional half doesnt work. because that how it actually happened during the actual campaign. so you go away and tell me how many british, dominion & french divisions were present at that time
matt2house 11 months ago
@guysmiley00 I think he means that the location was of French choosing - ie. in Picardy rather than Flanders/Ypres, the latter favoured by Haig, but with Verdun taking the allies by surprise, it was of course felt that the Somme would better assist the French. But I agree - the decision to launch a major allied offensive was taken in Jan 1915 at the Chantilly Conference and britain was committed to this anyway, which was why the New Armies were raised.
THthefirst 5 months ago
Lions led by Donkeys sums the General Staff's attitude to the troops. My Grandfather, two of his brothers and my Grandmother's brother disappeared in the massacre at Anafarta Ova Gallipoli, 12. 8. 15.
'Dulce et decorum es pro patria mori' ? Slaughter !
doddling 1 year ago
in this war, won only the Chinese, Muslims, Hindus and so on. Europeans have lost the best men
NordClearSky 1 year ago
theres a frequent tendency on our planet where masses of people congregate and kill one another. This is not uncommon and is quite glorified by all peoples of the earth.
LogicListens 1 year ago
@LogicListens
Not by all people. It is usually glorified by the elites which profit from war. It is rich old men in suits and nice offices that ponder and declair war. It is young men that are shot and blown to bits...
Youmakemefart 1 year ago
@Youmakemefart amen
LogicListens 1 year ago
Almost nobody knows that 78 British generals were killed in action during the war, and 146 wounded - a huge proportion in relation to their total numbers. The first was Gen N Findlay, Sept 1914, last was Gen J L Lipsett in Oct 1918.
And yet the "lions led by donkeys" myth fabricated by Alan Clark still prevails, it seems.
beastatlay 1 year ago
78 generals in 4 years.
approx 8 million men from the british empire... it is not surprising that lions led by donkeys is a popular belief!
1986emj 1 year ago
@1986emj
British & Empire generals suffered a casualty rate of 18.5% - more than any other rank other than Lieutenant (source "Bloody Red Tabs" by Maddocks & Davies). But hey, fuck them, they were only toffs - right? Upper-class people don't have friends, children or families...they just rented coal miners and matchstick girls for social engagements now and then, yeah? Your crude numbers "argument" doesn't make sense, unless you're willing to admit than anyone above lance-jack is a "donkey".
beastatlay 1 year ago
@beastatlay You seem to be forgetting the ranks of the enlisted men. The American infantry alone suffered about a 39% casualty rate, and one must imagine the rate to be higher among the European countries who had far higher total deaths than the US.
Why, exactly, do you think that the fact that some generals died changes how well they did their jobs, or that hundreds and thousands of lower-class grunts bought it with each of them?
guysmiley00 11 months ago
@1986emj
By the way, as horrific as it was, 8 million Empire soldiers did not die in the war - unless we were fighting Martians.
beastatlay 1 year ago
@beastatlay How does the death rate of field-grade officers have any relationship to their ability as commanders?
guysmiley00 11 months ago
J. R. R. Tolkien (Lord of the Rings' author) fought in this battle!
...
RIP brave heroes!
tpiom 1 year ago
It would seem there's a lot more to it. My guess is the film footage is German, but in which direction are we facing? There were many goings-on, on the hillside. The men (Germans?) in the foreground seem to be watching a skirmish. I don't think they're feigning attention. It's hard to tell exactly what unfolds either on the ridge top, or on the hillside. Although the action certainly appears to reflect all the adrenalin and confusion associated with a martial struggle.
PeggyMcGilligan 1 year ago
Early on, where the older man says, "It's the real McCoy. They're moving forward, toward the German front lines." Play the sequence for approximately 5 seconds. Repeat. One can see muzzle flashes. In the black & white footage a soldier traversing down the hillside fires a shot, to viewer's left. Next footage; return fire from hillside. Men fall. Later, as narrator says, "The only way Robertshaw can prove it is to go to France." Same hillside, retreating soldier, shot(s) fired, viewer's right.
PeggyMcGilligan 1 year ago
3:26 did that guy die in that "trench"? omg
Scahhi 2 years ago
If soldiers were to begin to think, not one would remain in the ranks.
Frederick The Great-German King
schattenfaust 2 years ago