"Very successful attack this morning... All went like clockwork... The battle is going very well for us and already the Germans are surrendering freely. The enemy is so short of men that he is collecting them from all parts of the line. Our troops are in wonderful spirits and full of confidence."
- A Report by Haig on the first day of attack, 1st July 1916
What a waste of so many lives for the greed of the so called upper class,and from an irish point of view so many irishmen lost there lives fighting for the freedom of small nations as the english liked to present there reason for going to war ,yet the british army was holding ireland by force and many other nations as well.Also with respect to the dead why is it that the brits like to potray them selfs as the heros and the germans as the evil ones?The facts of history do not tell us that.
@PATRICKEIRE I take your point that Britain had an empire, but equally it was progressive in other ways, e.g. abolishing slavery in 1807, developing paliamentary democracy, the common law etc. Britain was not the aggressor in either world war - it went to war in 1914 to defend Belgian neutrality and in 1939 to defend Polish's neutrality. The Irish government in WW2 did nothing to fighta against Nazi evil and Delavere signed the book of condolence when Hitler died. You must be proud.
@THthefirst I know what dev done in ww2 was wrong as regards to hitler,how ever u might learn ur history a bit better on what the irish did in ww2,,allthough eire was meant to be netural we allowed the allies use of irish airspace over donegal for the battle of the atlantic against the uboats,,also any allied airmen who crashed in eire were relased to england,,any germans were held till the end of the war,,
@PATRICKEIRE I know my history perfectly well thanks, like how the residents of Dublin all left their lights on deliberately at night to direct the Nazi bombers to Liverpool.
How you can possibly have the cheek to lecture Britain about its attitude when your own leader signed Hitler's condolence book - a mass murderer who killed millions - is a joke.
And how can you say britain held australia, canada etc under the force of arms when they all volunteered to fight?
Again u gloss over the fact that the brits went to war claiming to be fightn for the FREEDOM of small nations,,where was eire freedom,,we had to fight for it,,and then we are called terrorists for doing it?My point is that the brits had no right to be in any other nation other than there own,they claimed other nations,stole the wealth/resourses and when they got kicked out they left trouble behind them,Nrtn eire,palistine,india/pakistan,many african states,all because of brit polices and greed
@PATRICKEIRE You oversimplify matters to make it suit your particular view. I agree to a certain extent. I am no supporter of Empire. However, Britain (a tiny island with a small army) could only rule countries like India and Australia with the consent and support of most of the country. In fact, many Indians made a lot of money out of the British empire and it suited them. Once the tide turned, post-WW2, Britain didn't have a prolonged fight but gave up the colonies pretty quickly.
@PATRICKEIRE The other point is that there are often shades of grey in arguments and a "yes" "no" or "black" "white" point of view rarely shows much understanding or insight into complex issues - so I agree there is a contradiction in Britain having an empire on the one hand, albeit one that wasn't really run by military force but by consent in the main, and yet fighting for freedom in both world wars. Just as the Irish wanted freedom, yet their govt supported/was sympathetic to Hitler.
By consent??In ireland we couldnt vote because of our faith here,,so that consent goes out the window,,it was the landlords ,,(all english prodestants )who had the vote,and when we did get the vote we voted for an independent republic which the brits still wudnt agree to,,and in most other nation the brits took over they were the same ,the so called upperclass had the vote nd when that was changed the brits got kicked out,and again i agree dev shud not hv signed the book for hitler,,,,,,,,
But in ww2 the irish state gave the allies so much help in our airspace,our waters and in handing back all allied pow who landed in eire,the germans did not get the same,where do u think most of the beef and dairy the army used came from,the dublin fire service rushed to belfast aid in ww2 many times,what u seem to forget is that the irish gov cud never join the brits because of the war crimes commited in ireland by the brit army.and i agree in ww2 of course the brits were in the right.
@PATRICKEIRE I would agree some assistance was provided, but it was hardly "so much", and it had little military effect on the war. You talk about war crimes and paint the same old picture that the Irish love to paint of being victims, of being persecuted, because it absolves you of responsibility. I would suggest that war crimes have been commtited by BOTH sides over many years - Bloody Sunday was clearly one, and so was blowing up children in Omagh. Let's move on in peace?
@THthefirst bloody sunday was not a war crime as the troubles was not a war ,it was loss of control by professional soldiers ,who were doing a policemans job, provoked by a rioting crowd during a banned march, theIRA were an illegal gang of civilians ,with no mandate , did not represent the people of ireland, took no prisoners , every soldier they shot was a crime, as was every bomb, every kneecapping and bank robbery ,full respect to the irish who fought in both wars,the IRA can go to hell
Yes, well, first of all, thanks so much for entering into my conversation with Patrickeire. I am not sure if you have bothered to read it, to understand the context, but I suggest you do. Given your username, I am not sure if you are at all interested in any rational debate, but if you are, I would suggest that Britain/the north of Ireland have committed attrocities as well because human beings are capable of such things whatever their nationality. Agree with you on the IRA 100%.
NOT A WAR? omg you have some very rose tinted glasses,,i seem to rem over 10,000 troops in the north ,,i seem to rem the shoot to kill policy by the brit army/ruc.look im not saying everything the ira done was right but for the brits to try claim the morale high ground is a joke,are u tellnme if the nazis had landed in ww the brits wudnt hv fought the very same way the ira did?of course they wud,the same as the french did,no nation has any right to hold any nation against its will.
@PATRICKEIRE weve had tens of thousands of troops in germany since ww2 to , no war there , trying to contain violence and keep the loyalist and repulicans apart ,and having the odd shoot out doesnt make it a war , if there was a shoot to kill policy like the IRA had , the H blocks would be empty ,as the IRA prisoners would of been shot on site , it happend were IRA were shot , quite rightly to, tell me who saved bernadette devlin and her husband ,she hated us ,A Paratrooper saved them
@PATRICKEIRE that scenario of if the nazis had landed ,is not the same,, they were not joined , had no politicians in each others government , tottally different , irish had over 100 MPs in westminster, had common links for centuries irish have come here ,mixed and had families , used shared transport,business,many links language and history ,open borders thousands of irish worked in government jobs,and coexisted with each other ,apart from a minority intent on useing violence as usual
But you still seem to forget that the english army was in a forgein army holding ireland by force,and that is why the IRA fought. the english INVADED eire and held this nation for 800 years,and still has its army in the north,allthough thanks to the gfa we will have a free and united ireland for ALL no matter faith or creed,which is more than we ever had when the brits were here.No matter how u may try to forget it was britian that was in the wrong here,the caused the war
But i wud like to point out that i agree with u on our close links,and we have many,but it angers me so much when people call us the terriorsts for fighting for our nations freedom,as i said we done the very same as the french did in WW2,as the americans did in there war of independence,and yet they are potrayed ah heroes and rightly so,yes awful things were done by ira but my point is that when one nation holds another against its will these things will happen
@PATRICKEIRE they were terrorists , just as the new irish government called the anti agreement IRA terrorists , and the catholic church threatend to excommuncate them if they didnt stop their attacks ,, their acts were unlawful ,the scenerio in 1916 , most irish were passive ,just got on with life , many thousands were serving on the western front , and at a time were we could of lost the war , the IRA decided to launch an attack on its own capital ,putting many dubliners at risk
the timing of the IRA in 1916 couldnt of been more offensive to most british , talk of backstabbing, and by the law of the land they were traitors ,, they were armed by germans ,the ira conspired with the germans , german bullets were killing irish civilians in dublin, dubliners ,ive said before poured chamber pots on the rebels heads after they surrendered . they had no sympathy until the 16 were executed , surely they couldnt of expected anything less.
as for the americans who fought in war of independence, you had more rights than them, if they had what you had they would never of rebelled ,you had over 100 MPs in parliament , the colonies none,all they wanted was a voice in westminster,a say,washington and most of the other rebel leaders would of settled for that .the majority of colonists,were of english or british decent and it was more of a civil war , to begin with there was no hatred ,as such, they were us , but wanted their own voice
Back stabbing?Again let me remind u that no matter how you may try to gloss over the fact that the british had no right whatever to be in ireland,i will again point out that every nation has the RIGHT to its own gov and freedom,,and not to be dicated to by anyone else,and when another nation tries to claim these rights then the people have evry right to fight for ther rights,and as for ur comment about the irish in parliment ,they were 99% prodestant landlords who were elected
@TheMightOfTheEnglish and they were only interested in looking after there own greed driven bigoted way of life, and they were elected by the upperclass who were taking the queens shilling at the expesense of the rest of the nation,with exception of a handfull they were a stain on irelands history,,and ur point of german bullets and guns,,who was it that carson and the UVF bought there guns from?With the help of british officers who trained them.agian the brit empire has lot to answer for
@PATRICKEIRE If the 1.5 million in Ulster are not to be allowed to vote/control their independence from Ireland/retain links with Britain, should Scotland be allowed to do the same? Or do different rules apply?
Yes of course peace is the way forward,,and now we will have a united ireland thanks to the GFA,,it may take another 50 years but we hv waited 800 so we can wait 50 more,,however i would point out that thewar in ireland was fought by the irish the very same as the frence fought the nazis in ww2,,and i would point to churchill speech where he said they wud fight on the beachs,,etc,etc,,when a nation is held against the will of its people it has the right to fight back,,it not nice but it was war.
@PATRICKEIRE I can understand that argument. Equally, do you not see the slight irony in that the 1.5 million or so people in Ulster simply do not want to be part of Ireland but want to be part of the UK. The British govt has always said, when that changes, they will leave. So did the South seek to force the people in the north to be part of Ireland against their will, and use force to do so? Whatever the historical reasons, you have to deal with the way things are now by peace, not bombs.
@PATRICKEIRE de valera signed a condolence on the death of hitler what was that all about , wouldnt let jews into ireland escaping from nazi germany, so what you let british pilots go, so you sould , ireland knew full well what would of been in store if germany had won the war , as for beef , you didnt give it , it was bought , adding to your economy , crimes committed in ireland? irish committed crimes upon themselves during the irish civil war,
@TheMightOfTheEnglish yes you are right,,the irish civil war was very bitter on both sides,,but the cause of the civil war was the english insisting on the irish swearing an oath to the english crown and on the break up of our nation.after all it was the native irish whose land and rights were being trampled on.And as i pointed out dev should hv never have signed the book for hitler,what was done as regards the jews in ireland was wrong aswell.
@PATRICKEIRE the civil war was because most accepted the free state , to get a united ireland in the future, and the minority were against it ,and as usual rebelled , what was the result , there were more killed ,more atrocities and more executions irish on irish ,than in the war of independence, it could of been avoided
some of the bravest soldiers of ww2 were irishmen to be said , and are looked up to here , yet were shunned by there own, in ww1 thousands of irish who fought on the western front again were shunned and not remembered by the irish state for almost 80 years , , as for republicans , in ww1 they conspired with the germans ,who armed them,same in ww2 , IRA even threatend to shoot american soldiers in NI ,IRA also bombed england during ww2 ,IRA leaders also went to germany to get nazi support
@PATRICKEIRE where was eire freedom you say , well the free state was passed 3 times through parliament , it was the house of lords that blocked it and ulster unionists threatening all out civil war , , you would of got the freestate anyway without bloodshed , and probably a united ireland much sooner but for republican violence .as for being kicked out of those places the empire was finishing anyway , and would of been ,and was tranferred back mostly without violence
palastine was not in the empire , britain under the league of nations had the mandate to oversee that area until such a time came that the people there could govern themselves , it had been occupied by turks for a long time, what happend in palastine , was the fault of the UN and america ,practically forcing us to let jews enter that land , we were piggys in the middle , india wanted independence right away , and got it , wasnt our fault muslims and hindus could live together
@THthefirst also i wud point out england used the defence of small naitons as an excuse to fight in ww1,,they entered the war because they didnt want the germans having and empire like themselfs and as i pointed out how many nations did britian hold under force of arms for her so called empire..u cant spout that they fought fro freedom out of one side yet they held nations against there will on the other side,,DOUBLE STANDERDS
@PATRICKEIRE Britain hardly held other countries "under force of arms" given that Canada, Australia, South Africa etc were hugely patriotic and proud to be part of the Empire and fight for the motherland. Perhaps as an Irishman you have a particular agenda but don't speak on behalf of other countries. I am not defending britain's empire, but come on, at least they fought against Hitler (real evil) whereas Ireland wimped out and your prime minister signed Hitler's condolence book!
@THthefirst Yes i agree in ww2 the english were right in there cause,but in all fairness how many nations have had to fight the brits for there freedom,and eire gov could never have joined the brits in ww2 after the brit conduct in eire in the war of independance only 20 yrs b4 eg,bloody sunday in dublin,,the burning of cork city,the black and tansconduct in ireland,it wasnt a fact of not fightn the germans in ww2 it was a fact that the irish gov cundt hv joined on the british side
@PATRICKEIRE OK, so if you are right that Irish neutrality was explained for the reasons you say, why did the Irish PM of the day actively and positively decide to sign the book of sympathy for Hitler's death? That's a bit different from just not fighting alongside the Brits, surely? It suggests pro-Hitler sympathy.
The nations that have fought a war against Britain for independence are USA, India and South Africa. That's it. Three countries out of about twenty in the commonwealth.
@PATRICKEIRE That said, many Irishmen of course volunteered to fight against Hitler for the British army and in 1914-18 many Irishmen also volunteered to fight for Britain. It is part of the complex and not always rational relationship between Britain and Ireland. I do not doubt that Britain did bad things in Ireland, but then attocities have been committed on both sides over the years, that's for sure. The sad thing was Home Rule would have been given to Ireland in 1914 but for the war.
This battle evokes the deepest feelings of sorrow and desperation. I Watch the footage of the three soldiers cut down while on their futile charge, watch it over and over. Seems like one spray from a single machine gun. try to imagine who they were, young guys. Probably told jokes and lauged a lot like you Brits do. What about the Kraut on the machine gun? Did he sign up to slaughter innocent, defenseless young men as they lumbered across a mile of open field? Sad. No words.
The red Poppy wasan utterly inspirational symbol which has come to mean so much to so many. One slight contrary observation that I have always felt though where the rememberance of our dead of war is concerned. I have often felt that in using the word GLORIOUS on the Cenotaph in Whitehall - how inappropriate this adjective is. I see nothing glorious is dying with one's face blown off lying in some rat infested trench. The words could have simply been inscribed "The Honoured Dead". More fitting.
WWI was not our war. So America didn't like to get involved in Europe's wars over the smallest things; and that's a bad thing? WWI is the perfect example. One guy gets shot, so sudenly the whole continent is at war? WWI: most senseless butchery in history. Just think where we could be if Europe had placed its energy in things more productive than killing people. We would be living on Mars by now! Thank God the world will never let it happen again!
@ToaJoe I don't minimize the losses, I was merely pointing out that the U.S. were late to the war, suffered far less, but obviously had the potential to infuse huge amounts of men and material into the battle if it had lasted. Or...perhaps if the U.S. had suffered as the British, French and Russians had, they would have pulled out and said it isn't worth it! Gone home licking their wounds. We'll never know.
@ToaJoe I believe the war was motivated partly (at least on Germany and Austria-Hungary's part) by imperialism and the desire to increase colonization. A clash of imperial powers if you will. Why would a republican democracy want to entangle themselves in that? It would have been similar to European powers sailing over to fight in the U.S. Civil War.
My only point was that the Americans really didn't feel like they had a dog in the fight, so there was strong resistance to getting involved until the sinking of U.S. ships. Can we agree that the war was an incredible waste of life, and men were squandered by incompetent leaders who didn't understand the tactics and weapons they faced on the "modern" battlefield?
@moontwpman My apologies, I thought you were a southern state Christian flag waver, a historic illiterate.
But I'm afraid fresh American ground troops really didn't make much difference. The royal navy blockade had been strangling Germany as early as 1916 to near starvation, and French troops kept the deadlock with Germany. That is not a sustainable situation. Even with the additional eastern front troops, Germany was doomed by 1917. You can't sustain an army without food.
@ToaJoe I don't disagree, but with the Russians out of it due to the Bolshevik Revolution, if Germany could have held on in the West, they might have managed to pick off Entente one-by-one...not militarily, but if they could have gotten either England or France to make a separate peace, the end result would have been a better one for Germany. What i find interesting is their whole premise going into the war.
@ToaJoe Their whole battle plan was based on the early twentieth century plans developed by von Schlieffen that assumed the Russians couldn't mobilize faster than several months. The German war plans therefore called for a sweep through the Low Countries to knock France out before Russia could mobilize...then they could turn East. No two-front war. Russia had upgraded railroads and got troops to the front faster than anticipated...siphoning off German and Austrian troops to the east.
@ToaJoe Of course the other fatal flaws were in von Moltke's modifications which weakened the German right flank & didn't sweep wide enough to envelope the French (& English/Belgian) left, & the invasion of Belgium which guaranteed England's entry into the war. Of course, I don't know how you can sweep around the French left flank without going through Belgium and Luxembourg but there you are! I also think the French were crazy to think that agressive attacks and elan were enough to face MG's.
@ToaJoe Why are you being so vicious? First off, I'm actually British, and one of my relatives went over the top at the Battle of the Somme and later lost a leg and suffered shrapnel wounds. I've also lost relatives in WWII, along with having my grandparents and parents live through the Blitz.. I am WELL AWARE of the British casualties on the first day of the Somme and I intended in NO WAY to minimize their loss and intended no disrespect to the fallen.
Could we please not have any more videos cobbled together from material we are already over familiar with accompanied by mournful music and only suitable for the hooked-on-grief brigade.
Any historian knows full well these men were ordinary blokes like you and me trapped in extraordinary circumstances and trying to stay uninjured and alive.
My Grandfather was one of them and in WW2 my Dad was too. Neither of them had any time for this sort of histrionics.
HOW CAN THE MUDERING DRUG DEALING SCUM THAT CALL THEMSELVES THE UVF COMPARE THEMSELVES TO THE BRAVE MEN THAT FOUGHT AT THE SOMME.....TURNING IN THERE GRAVES IM SURE! THE WARS OVER NOBODY WANTS YOU .....FUCK OFF!
For the sake of historical accuracy and all that, 19,240 British killed or died of wounds and 38,000 wounded on the first day of the battle of the Somme. Horrific figures but not the 58,000 killed as this film suggests. Doesn't make it any better and I don't mean to detract from the sentiment of the film because I think it was made in the spirit of remembrance and respect. Just giving a 'heads up'.
100.000 nin bile bile ölüme gittiği başka ordu başka asker yok.
garanti veriyorum.-10 derecede 10 km yürüyemezsiniz.bunu o civar bölgelerde(sivas-erzurum-erzincan vs.) büyümüş olan bütün askerler biliyorlardı.hem de açtılar,çıplakdılar ama yine de yürüdüler.çünkü evliylar,erenler geldiler onların gözlerine göründüler.o cennetlik ordu hiç ağlamadı,hep kuran okudular ama belli bir süre sonra sadece rüzgar uğultusu ve tipi sesi duyuluyordu çünkü onlar artık ALLAH larının yanındaydılar.
One day and 58,000 lives gone their souls departed,brothers in arms,friends,fathers,sons.To you my friends I salute you for you have made us all proud.The death of so many for so little gain,You go to hell and back and ultimately
you go to a safe home with the Lord, your Lord my Lord.
God bless you My forefathers , for you made my home a better place.
What ALL of you should be pissed about is (A) the absolute UNNECESSARY World War, and (B) the slaughter of MILLIONS of OUR OWN PEOPLE on BOTH sides. 58,000 British IN ONE DAY! FOR WHAT!? Over 1 MILLION European men on both sides. FOR WHAT!? How many Beethovens, Planks, Chaucers, Tolkiens, Kafkas, Brechts, were killed in that single day? Think of the children they might have sired. As a racial group, Whites are the LEAST numerical. We should NEVER genocide ourselves like this again!
@19Truth53 The war was not absoultly un-necessary. The German elite, rightly or wrongly, realised they would be outclassed and out competed in coming decades if they did not launch a European war to better both or either their colonial or continental empire and/or position. Also the Entente nations could not allow a new Super-German state. Also a number of countries' freedom was protected in this war; Belgians and Serbians view the war as very important!
@fp470 I think you've unfairly laid the all the blame for the war at the feet of the Germans, when in actual fact it was the Austro-Hungarians who were to blame. The Germans share the blame for many things, such as blindly and unequivocably supporting to Austria-Hungary in their unreasonable demands on Serbia. The whole thing could have been avoided, but nobody particularly wanted to avoid a war they thought would be short and possibly a good thing for their own particular country.
@moontwpman Revisionist Historians have found Germany to be at fault for the War, a sympathetic historiography to Germany has been taught in schools of 'everyone at fault' and as such has clouded the issue. The British and French wanted to avoid war, Britain was coming out of a recession and France's leftist/socialist government was pacifist and pro-internationalist. The work of Fritz Fischer, Sheffield, Bond and other recent historians have used documents to demonstrate German guilt.
I wish My country the U.S would actually care about history,I feel alone.nobody I ever talked to cares about it, I am actually depressed on how nobody cares i just want some people to care,but nobody does. I wish i never lived in a country with all of these blood thirsty tyrants,but that wish never will come true anytime soon.
@Conquistador1599 I agree with you and I am sick of the ignorance that spews from from their mouths. I grew up with history. When I was young my Dad took me to his Civil War reenactments and I learned to love history. Everytime i would learn something new I would research the hell out of it. Which is how I became interested in the Great War. This thirst for knowledge led me to write a Historical Fiction novel about WWI called Destroyed by the War. I hope you find more people who love history.
@MajorPatMcClelland Well I accept that you made a huge contribution in ww2 as did the other members of the "big three" the British Empire, and the Soviet Union, but when Americans talk about contribution in ww1 I get really pissed off I mean come on you only fought for 6 months!
@NorthernerMatty123 In my comment I am not saying that the US made a tremendous contribution in the Great war but my Great Grandfather Jens Pedersen went behind enemy lines despite being wounded to rescue a wounded comrade. Though his contribution to the war effort was small. His contribution to my family was great. Had it not been for him I would not be a US citizen. Plus destroyed by the war is a historical fiction about an Irishman in the Great War...America is not even mentioned in the book.
@MajorPatMcClelland Well mate, the Jerries had extra troops available in 1917 due to the Ruski Revolution. They stuck the whole lot on the Western front. BUT they knew the Doughboys were on their way in and that disjointed their strategy and made them panic. The 1917 Jerry offensive threatened to overwhelm the Allies with the French in open revolution as well (I am a Brit). They knew that they had to win the war there and then. Your lads did sterling work in the Argonne. Thank you Yankees!
@NorthernerMatty123 I have to say mate, that's a bit mean. The French army in 1917 revolted and wouldn't fight until Petain took over. We were the only fighting army on the Western front and in open retreat against Kaisershlacht because of the huge numbers of extra Germans freed from the 140 mile Eastern front. The US entry into the fray panicked the Jerries and their capitulation would not have happened without the Doughboys. Their entry into the fray also gave the French fighting spirit.
well. WW1 and WW2 were both bad wars, there was nothing GREAT about it, except that they're over and done with and were won by the allied forces USA,Britain France and Russia alike.
i tried to comment. i tried to quote official figures but the us military stopped me . join them and die. or join and be lied too, BE GOOD GIRLS - I hate you but you died for freedom!
In Belgium we honour those brave men every day since 1928! by blowing "the last post EVERY DAY at 8 PM" at the "Menenpoort" poort means gate. I can not imagine that it could be me,standing there, if I was born in the early 20th century.
Look at this guy.... II WW Freedom vs Tyranny... kkkkkkk... the second II ww was fought for the same reason as the I ww
right ...which means you have money I go and take it from you ... that's it... Look at Africa ...is there any super power fighting to free than from tyranny ...
@wilkester: this movie is about WWI. The British, Canadians, Australians etc. fought against Imperial Germany, NOT Nazi Germany. Fighting Nazis was in world War II. World War I was fought between countries with similar political and almost identical economic systems. On the Allied side was Imperial Russia, an autocracy - so this wasn't a war about freedom vs. tyranny. Niall Ferguson's "The Pity of War" is worth reading for a nuanced view of it all.
I wish people could stop posting immature comments. Show some respect for the soldiers who gave their lives for their loved ones and their countries, whatever country it may be.
And also I dont understand why Americans get so proud of themselves thinking they saved everyone else in this war, and WW2. You really should educate yourselves more on what actually happened throughout the entire war, not just the year or so your country participated in. You just sound like uneducated fools.
Don't GENERALIZE all Americans, makes you sound uneducated. I understand that America almost sided with Germany in WWI. Just be grateful that we "helped" each other, and that we have somewhat peace now, period!
although WW1 was almost entirely British won, (comparitively, the French helped too, as did the Russians for a bit) without the Lend-Lease program (created before the US actually entered) Britain could very well have not been able to win WW2. America also supplied the Soviets with essential materials. US manpower did not win the war, its industrial might did, and yes i do think Americans have a right to be proud, we did fight off the Japanese (with a large amount of help from the Aussies).
Was bistn du für ein Schbassd argosime? Hobbies: Killing Juden. Dreckige Nazisau! Und lern mal Geschichte......Der erste Weltkrieg überwiegend von den Briten gewonnen. Bei dir is wohl jeder Verstand sofort verloren gegangen als dich deine Mutter damals rausgeschissen hat.
yes... it took until 2009 for the British to stop paying off WW2 dept to the US. It sounds a little SHAMEFULL that a nation should begger itself to finish Hitler.. but the USA is still proud to declare it! and then WE fought other bastards but you USA think we should be grateful?
@argosime You really need to read some books. I suggest Barbara Tuchman's excellent "Guns of August" for causes and the first month of the war, and Hew Strachan's "The First World War". The French played a very big part in WWI and have the losses to show for it. To say the British won...or that the US saved the Entente are neither totally false or totally accurate. I say that as a Brit living in America.
moontwpman, very true. I would add to the list of "must read": A. Soljhenytsin, "August 14". Certainly one of the best books written on war, ever, by a man who knew what he was writing about.
@UKShibby I totally agree with you.I visited Tynecot Cemetery a couple of years ago.To see the amount of white crosses is unbelievable.No one,and I mean no one could walk out of there without tears in their eyes as to the tragic waste of life and futility of it all.OK,whatever nation we are.Death has no scruples or morals.It will take us all.Lets just remember our gloriousdead in whatever way we wish too.
@mensa29 Well said mensa. I took a walk from Ypres station where our boys got out of the train, through the Menin gate, past hellfire corner up the Menin road until I reached hill 62 (Santuary Wood). I walked back the same way, passing the many cemetaries until I got back to the Menin Gate. They played the last post as I arrived under its' arches as I read the names on it's walls. Words fail me at this point! Poor Blokes.
@UKShibby nikka they proud because. listen to me if america wouldnt of joined ww1 and ww2 it would of bin a diff war . we all are in this together you get educated and stop saying stuff that you think. the allies british canada and russia. if u research the were losing. if you new italy they go on the winners side. they were on the german side. once america joined the war allies were winning. then italy traded germany because they started losing. learn somthing buddy
This is what happens when you use outdated tactics against modern weapons. Frontal infantry assaults against fortified machine gun positions is suicide. But the bravery these men exhibited is commendable. Knowing that for a lot of them, this was their last day alive yet still waded into machine gun bullets is testimony to their convictions that what they're doing was right and just. God Bless those British soldiers. Every one of them. May the dead rest in peace.
Enough bickering and show respect for these heroes who will never be forgotten. Brittish, American, Canadian, Australian, I salute whoever stood up to the nazi tyranny that plagued Europe. True heros, they don't make them like this anymore
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
you moron. You'd be speaking german if the US didn't FINISH the job the limeys couldn't. Go soak your bad teeth and shithead in a pint of lager some more fool. If it wasn't for Paton in Africa, ole Monty would've been pushed back into the sea. Amazing how you clowns chose to ignore the facts and run your silly hooligan mouth. Soccer Sucks! It's the dogs.
If you think the US "won" WW1 you're the worst kind of uninformed clod, and all the Brit Commonwealth & French here calling you a moron are correct. I don't wish to be grouped with you, so please shut up.
Not to downplay our role in WWI, but we did not make near the sacrifices the above mentioned countries did.
We played a *much* larger part in WWII than WWI. On the other hand, who sacrificed the most, and contributed the most to winning WWII?
The Entente only won WWI because the U.S. joined it!! FACT! Not cus they beat Germany on the field as her army was undefeated and deep into enemy´s land in 1918! It was simply the hopeless fight against the never ending resources which the Entente suddenly had! I give a fuck about Brits or French Wisenheimers as I know the truth. And not the truth from the winner´s history books.....but from many books written by soldiers about both wars! And Russia (or Russian winter) won WWII, right!!
Opinion. US logistical support was there for years before the last year when our troops were in reasonable force. The bulk of the attritional work was done before we ever showed up in person. The final German offensives in WWI were exactly what they were in WWII -- last ditch efforts to force a negotiated peace rather than a loss.
All the capslock and exclamation points on Earth won't make opinion into fact, it just makes petulant internet ranting. With that, we part ways. Good luck to you.
@Tikayyan oh my god an american like me whos sensible thank god any american who thinks that ehy won ww2 and ww1 all bu them selves should be put back in school but then that probable wouldnt work beacus all the schools talk about are american ahcivements
@TheSeanbwoii Anyone that participated in WW1 deserves the same amount of respect as the British and French. That does not mean we made the same level of sacrifice. The Brits and French would have won WW1 without us just as surely as they would have lost WW2 without us and (particularly) the Soviets.
@Tikayyan Of course they do. We might have won the war without the US but they did join for a reason not just for the sake of it. And the reason America didn't make as much sacrifice is because they were only in the war for 1 year and in that 1 year America lost over 160'000 soldiers. And yes the British would have lost WW2 without the US just like the US would have lost WW2 without the British. And of course the Soviets.
@Tikayyan I pretty much agree with you, though you of course oversimplify matters. I do not however entirely agree that Britain would have lost the war without US support. The lowest point and crisis moment for Britain was 1940, which she got through and won (Battle of Britain) without US military aid. With the Soviets likely to defeat Germany anyway, I think it is fair to say Britiain wouldn't have lost the war if she was on her own, but couldn't have won it on her own.
@machierl There is no doubt that the infusion of fresh American troops played a big part in winning WWI, not so much because they DID a majority of the fighting, but because the Germans knew that it would result in huge resources in manpower & weaponry. The sad fact is though, the British were slow to mobilize in WWI, & the Americans were very slow to join in both WWI & WWII. While they perhaps had less of a 'dog in the fight' in WWI, imagine what might have been avoided if they joined sooner.
@moontwpman Pardon me for doubting that bullshit you just posted. Fresh American troops played not only an insignificant role, but almost no role at all, in winning WW1. Wilson should have been hung for daring to even attend the peace talks.
@ToaJoe If you read what I wrote, I said that the U.S. did not make a significant contribution in terms of actual fighting but their contribution was in the potentail. With a population around 100 million (estimates vary from 92 to 102 million) the U.S. had a greater population than any participant other than Russia and the combined British Empire. The fielding of an army of 2.8 million pales when compared to the armies the Entente fielded, the Central Powers knew the potential.
@ToaJoe By the summer of 1918 the U.S. was landing 10,000 fresh troops a DAY in France. To the Central Powers, already bled white by four years of fighting, that had to be a discouraging statistic, and one which they had to know they could never overcome. The U.S. army by the end of the war was around 4.7 million, and no doubt could have grown to 10 million easily if the war had continued.
@moontwpman You want to talk big numbers, eh, you stupid pratt? I'll give you some big numbers.
Total British deaths on the FIRST DAY of the Somme: 20,000
Total USA WW1 death toll: 110,000.
So, just over 1/5th of the total US deaths were equal to total British casualities on a SINGLE DAY.
You make me sick, you nationalist cunt. You know nothing about history, you are only interested in flag waving, therefore you insulting MILLIONS of dead soldiers. Fuck you!
America only joined because of Pearl Harobur you twat plus you wouldnt be born if it wasn't for England you would be Canadian or Mexican or Indian but England colonised America so be grateful that you are alive
England did not colonise all fo America, The Dutch (you probably dont know this) founded New York (named New Amsterdam) and also settled most of the region. The Swedes also had a large number of forts and towns, and the French would have been mroe than willing to move in, so im sure without England, their would be a non-mexican/canadian/indian country, and besides most Americans are descended from Germans.
Small numbers of Welsh and a decent number of Scots but originally it was only the English and Spaniards and now if you look at a non-self reporting census you will see that English Americans make up the largest minority in the country.
Yeah, we apologizing for saving your sorry French/British asses. Now that we know how it all played out, I think we should have let the Germans run over you at the Second Battle of the Marne. Lets see...the only reason the allies won that battle was...hmmm...fresh American troops? I'm pretty sure that's the correct answer, from what I hear the ol' BEF was about to mutiny, as was the French Army.
Hi FaceFlab, 58,000 did not fall on the first day. 20,000 fell on the first day of the battle of the Somme. By the time the battle of the Somme was over, Britain had lost 420,000. You need to get your facts right.
Sorry microsoft57 but FaceFlab is correct. Military records give the total casulties for July 1st 1916 as 57,470. I have posted the breakdown of this figure under the video 'Battle of the Somme- Real footage. Your figure of 20,000 is nearer the number killed which was 19,240. The word casulties refers to, killed; wounded; missing or taken prisoner,i.e. those no longer able to fight. The ammazing fact was that they were all British volunteers not conscripts.
i cant say that anyone was courageous, when they were told by their officiers that they could stroll to the german lines. which most did. and then the maxims opened up and down the tommies fell
This was a tragic futile initiative. A weeks worth of artillery pounding the German line with no substantial effect. No man's land was a killing field, another example of weak strategic abilities of the Allied high command. Never forget the lads at the Somme. Love the choice of Dvorak "New World Symphonies" as the theme. No other music captures the majesty and inhumanity of the waste of war better. Well done!
This Yank salutes the incredibly brave British forces who advanced into immortality on July 1, 1916, and for the tens of thousands who fell in the months that followed.. Many have forgotten their sacrifice. But I haven't. And I never will.
Actually there were 20,000 British (and British Empire) soldiers killed on the first day of the battle and over 40,000 wounded. Casualties for the whole battle between 1st July and Mid November 1916 were 400,000 for the British forces.
WW1 was actually a stalemate, much like Korea, and WW2 was more of a continuation, although in between the countries rebuilt and prepared to go at it again.
The battle also went on for many months and it ended up the germans recapturing all the land the British had gained and a bit more if memory serves me right
The battle lasted from 1st July until November 1916, it's not correct that the Germans recaptured all the ground taken, in fact the result was that the Germans did retreat, but only by a small amount and the result was very limited in terms of gains by the Allies.
britains greatest victory
sprPee 1 month ago
couldnt live together sould of said .
TheMightOfTheEnglish 2 months ago
"Very successful attack this morning... All went like clockwork... The battle is going very well for us and already the Germans are surrendering freely. The enemy is so short of men that he is collecting them from all parts of the line. Our troops are in wonderful spirits and full of confidence."
- A Report by Haig on the first day of attack, 1st July 1916
Jasper1997211 3 months ago
What a waste of so many lives for the greed of the so called upper class,and from an irish point of view so many irishmen lost there lives fighting for the freedom of small nations as the english liked to present there reason for going to war ,yet the british army was holding ireland by force and many other nations as well.Also with respect to the dead why is it that the brits like to potray them selfs as the heros and the germans as the evil ones?The facts of history do not tell us that.
PATRICKEIRE 3 months ago
@PATRICKEIRE I take your point that Britain had an empire, but equally it was progressive in other ways, e.g. abolishing slavery in 1807, developing paliamentary democracy, the common law etc. Britain was not the aggressor in either world war - it went to war in 1914 to defend Belgian neutrality and in 1939 to defend Polish's neutrality. The Irish government in WW2 did nothing to fighta against Nazi evil and Delavere signed the book of condolence when Hitler died. You must be proud.
THthefirst 2 months ago
@THthefirst I know what dev done in ww2 was wrong as regards to hitler,how ever u might learn ur history a bit better on what the irish did in ww2,,allthough eire was meant to be netural we allowed the allies use of irish airspace over donegal for the battle of the atlantic against the uboats,,also any allied airmen who crashed in eire were relased to england,,any germans were held till the end of the war,,
PATRICKEIRE 2 months ago
@PATRICKEIRE I know my history perfectly well thanks, like how the residents of Dublin all left their lights on deliberately at night to direct the Nazi bombers to Liverpool.
How you can possibly have the cheek to lecture Britain about its attitude when your own leader signed Hitler's condolence book - a mass murderer who killed millions - is a joke.
And how can you say britain held australia, canada etc under the force of arms when they all volunteered to fight?
THthefirst 2 months ago
Again u gloss over the fact that the brits went to war claiming to be fightn for the FREEDOM of small nations,,where was eire freedom,,we had to fight for it,,and then we are called terrorists for doing it?My point is that the brits had no right to be in any other nation other than there own,they claimed other nations,stole the wealth/resourses and when they got kicked out they left trouble behind them,Nrtn eire,palistine,india/pakistan,many african states,all because of brit polices and greed
PATRICKEIRE 2 months ago
@PATRICKEIRE You oversimplify matters to make it suit your particular view. I agree to a certain extent. I am no supporter of Empire. However, Britain (a tiny island with a small army) could only rule countries like India and Australia with the consent and support of most of the country. In fact, many Indians made a lot of money out of the British empire and it suited them. Once the tide turned, post-WW2, Britain didn't have a prolonged fight but gave up the colonies pretty quickly.
THthefirst 2 months ago
@PATRICKEIRE The other point is that there are often shades of grey in arguments and a "yes" "no" or "black" "white" point of view rarely shows much understanding or insight into complex issues - so I agree there is a contradiction in Britain having an empire on the one hand, albeit one that wasn't really run by military force but by consent in the main, and yet fighting for freedom in both world wars. Just as the Irish wanted freedom, yet their govt supported/was sympathetic to Hitler.
THthefirst 2 months ago
By consent??In ireland we couldnt vote because of our faith here,,so that consent goes out the window,,it was the landlords ,,(all english prodestants )who had the vote,and when we did get the vote we voted for an independent republic which the brits still wudnt agree to,,and in most other nation the brits took over they were the same ,the so called upperclass had the vote nd when that was changed the brits got kicked out,and again i agree dev shud not hv signed the book for hitler,,,,,,,,
PATRICKEIRE 2 months ago
But in ww2 the irish state gave the allies so much help in our airspace,our waters and in handing back all allied pow who landed in eire,the germans did not get the same,where do u think most of the beef and dairy the army used came from,the dublin fire service rushed to belfast aid in ww2 many times,what u seem to forget is that the irish gov cud never join the brits because of the war crimes commited in ireland by the brit army.and i agree in ww2 of course the brits were in the right.
PATRICKEIRE 2 months ago
@PATRICKEIRE I would agree some assistance was provided, but it was hardly "so much", and it had little military effect on the war. You talk about war crimes and paint the same old picture that the Irish love to paint of being victims, of being persecuted, because it absolves you of responsibility. I would suggest that war crimes have been commtited by BOTH sides over many years - Bloody Sunday was clearly one, and so was blowing up children in Omagh. Let's move on in peace?
THthefirst 2 months ago
@THthefirst bloody sunday was not a war crime as the troubles was not a war ,it was loss of control by professional soldiers ,who were doing a policemans job, provoked by a rioting crowd during a banned march, theIRA were an illegal gang of civilians ,with no mandate , did not represent the people of ireland, took no prisoners , every soldier they shot was a crime, as was every bomb, every kneecapping and bank robbery ,full respect to the irish who fought in both wars,the IRA can go to hell
TheMightOfTheEnglish 2 months ago
Yes, well, first of all, thanks so much for entering into my conversation with Patrickeire. I am not sure if you have bothered to read it, to understand the context, but I suggest you do. Given your username, I am not sure if you are at all interested in any rational debate, but if you are, I would suggest that Britain/the north of Ireland have committed attrocities as well because human beings are capable of such things whatever their nationality. Agree with you on the IRA 100%.
THthefirst 2 months ago
NOT A WAR? omg you have some very rose tinted glasses,,i seem to rem over 10,000 troops in the north ,,i seem to rem the shoot to kill policy by the brit army/ruc.look im not saying everything the ira done was right but for the brits to try claim the morale high ground is a joke,are u tellnme if the nazis had landed in ww the brits wudnt hv fought the very same way the ira did?of course they wud,the same as the french did,no nation has any right to hold any nation against its will.
PATRICKEIRE 2 months ago
@PATRICKEIRE weve had tens of thousands of troops in germany since ww2 to , no war there , trying to contain violence and keep the loyalist and repulicans apart ,and having the odd shoot out doesnt make it a war , if there was a shoot to kill policy like the IRA had , the H blocks would be empty ,as the IRA prisoners would of been shot on site , it happend were IRA were shot , quite rightly to, tell me who saved bernadette devlin and her husband ,she hated us ,A Paratrooper saved them
TheMightOfTheEnglish 2 months ago
@PATRICKEIRE that scenario of if the nazis had landed ,is not the same,, they were not joined , had no politicians in each others government , tottally different , irish had over 100 MPs in westminster, had common links for centuries irish have come here ,mixed and had families , used shared transport,business,many links language and history ,open borders thousands of irish worked in government jobs,and coexisted with each other ,apart from a minority intent on useing violence as usual
TheMightOfTheEnglish 2 months ago
But you still seem to forget that the english army was in a forgein army holding ireland by force,and that is why the IRA fought. the english INVADED eire and held this nation for 800 years,and still has its army in the north,allthough thanks to the gfa we will have a free and united ireland for ALL no matter faith or creed,which is more than we ever had when the brits were here.No matter how u may try to forget it was britian that was in the wrong here,the caused the war
PATRICKEIRE 2 months ago
But i wud like to point out that i agree with u on our close links,and we have many,but it angers me so much when people call us the terriorsts for fighting for our nations freedom,as i said we done the very same as the french did in WW2,as the americans did in there war of independence,and yet they are potrayed ah heroes and rightly so,yes awful things were done by ira but my point is that when one nation holds another against its will these things will happen
PATRICKEIRE 2 months ago
@PATRICKEIRE they were terrorists , just as the new irish government called the anti agreement IRA terrorists , and the catholic church threatend to excommuncate them if they didnt stop their attacks ,, their acts were unlawful ,the scenerio in 1916 , most irish were passive ,just got on with life , many thousands were serving on the western front , and at a time were we could of lost the war , the IRA decided to launch an attack on its own capital ,putting many dubliners at risk
TheMightOfTheEnglish 2 months ago
the timing of the IRA in 1916 couldnt of been more offensive to most british , talk of backstabbing, and by the law of the land they were traitors ,, they were armed by germans ,the ira conspired with the germans , german bullets were killing irish civilians in dublin, dubliners ,ive said before poured chamber pots on the rebels heads after they surrendered . they had no sympathy until the 16 were executed , surely they couldnt of expected anything less.
TheMightOfTheEnglish 2 months ago
as for the americans who fought in war of independence, you had more rights than them, if they had what you had they would never of rebelled ,you had over 100 MPs in parliament , the colonies none,all they wanted was a voice in westminster,a say,washington and most of the other rebel leaders would of settled for that .the majority of colonists,were of english or british decent and it was more of a civil war , to begin with there was no hatred ,as such, they were us , but wanted their own voice
TheMightOfTheEnglish 2 months ago
Back stabbing?Again let me remind u that no matter how you may try to gloss over the fact that the british had no right whatever to be in ireland,i will again point out that every nation has the RIGHT to its own gov and freedom,,and not to be dicated to by anyone else,and when another nation tries to claim these rights then the people have evry right to fight for ther rights,and as for ur comment about the irish in parliment ,they were 99% prodestant landlords who were elected
PATRICKEIRE 2 months ago
@TheMightOfTheEnglish and they were only interested in looking after there own greed driven bigoted way of life, and they were elected by the upperclass who were taking the queens shilling at the expesense of the rest of the nation,with exception of a handfull they were a stain on irelands history,,and ur point of german bullets and guns,,who was it that carson and the UVF bought there guns from?With the help of british officers who trained them.agian the brit empire has lot to answer for
PATRICKEIRE 2 months ago
@PATRICKEIRE Did the French blow up German children in Berlin?
THthefirst 2 weeks ago
@PATRICKEIRE If the 1.5 million in Ulster are not to be allowed to vote/control their independence from Ireland/retain links with Britain, should Scotland be allowed to do the same? Or do different rules apply?
THthefirst 2 weeks ago
Yes of course peace is the way forward,,and now we will have a united ireland thanks to the GFA,,it may take another 50 years but we hv waited 800 so we can wait 50 more,,however i would point out that thewar in ireland was fought by the irish the very same as the frence fought the nazis in ww2,,and i would point to churchill speech where he said they wud fight on the beachs,,etc,etc,,when a nation is held against the will of its people it has the right to fight back,,it not nice but it was war.
PATRICKEIRE 2 months ago
@PATRICKEIRE I can understand that argument. Equally, do you not see the slight irony in that the 1.5 million or so people in Ulster simply do not want to be part of Ireland but want to be part of the UK. The British govt has always said, when that changes, they will leave. So did the South seek to force the people in the north to be part of Ireland against their will, and use force to do so? Whatever the historical reasons, you have to deal with the way things are now by peace, not bombs.
THthefirst 2 months ago
@PATRICKEIRE de valera signed a condolence on the death of hitler what was that all about , wouldnt let jews into ireland escaping from nazi germany, so what you let british pilots go, so you sould , ireland knew full well what would of been in store if germany had won the war , as for beef , you didnt give it , it was bought , adding to your economy , crimes committed in ireland? irish committed crimes upon themselves during the irish civil war,
TheMightOfTheEnglish 2 months ago
@TheMightOfTheEnglish yes you are right,,the irish civil war was very bitter on both sides,,but the cause of the civil war was the english insisting on the irish swearing an oath to the english crown and on the break up of our nation.after all it was the native irish whose land and rights were being trampled on.And as i pointed out dev should hv never have signed the book for hitler,what was done as regards the jews in ireland was wrong aswell.
PATRICKEIRE 2 months ago
@PATRICKEIRE the civil war was because most accepted the free state , to get a united ireland in the future, and the minority were against it ,and as usual rebelled , what was the result , there were more killed ,more atrocities and more executions irish on irish ,than in the war of independence, it could of been avoided
TheMightOfTheEnglish 2 months ago
some of the bravest soldiers of ww2 were irishmen to be said , and are looked up to here , yet were shunned by there own, in ww1 thousands of irish who fought on the western front again were shunned and not remembered by the irish state for almost 80 years , , as for republicans , in ww1 they conspired with the germans ,who armed them,same in ww2 , IRA even threatend to shoot american soldiers in NI ,IRA also bombed england during ww2 ,IRA leaders also went to germany to get nazi support
TheMightOfTheEnglish 2 months ago
@PATRICKEIRE where was eire freedom you say , well the free state was passed 3 times through parliament , it was the house of lords that blocked it and ulster unionists threatening all out civil war , , you would of got the freestate anyway without bloodshed , and probably a united ireland much sooner but for republican violence .as for being kicked out of those places the empire was finishing anyway , and would of been ,and was tranferred back mostly without violence
TheMightOfTheEnglish 2 months ago
palastine was not in the empire , britain under the league of nations had the mandate to oversee that area until such a time came that the people there could govern themselves , it had been occupied by turks for a long time, what happend in palastine , was the fault of the UN and america ,practically forcing us to let jews enter that land , we were piggys in the middle , india wanted independence right away , and got it , wasnt our fault muslims and hindus could live together
TheMightOfTheEnglish 2 months ago
@THthefirst also i wud point out england used the defence of small naitons as an excuse to fight in ww1,,they entered the war because they didnt want the germans having and empire like themselfs and as i pointed out how many nations did britian hold under force of arms for her so called empire..u cant spout that they fought fro freedom out of one side yet they held nations against there will on the other side,,DOUBLE STANDERDS
PATRICKEIRE 2 months ago
@PATRICKEIRE Britain hardly held other countries "under force of arms" given that Canada, Australia, South Africa etc were hugely patriotic and proud to be part of the Empire and fight for the motherland. Perhaps as an Irishman you have a particular agenda but don't speak on behalf of other countries. I am not defending britain's empire, but come on, at least they fought against Hitler (real evil) whereas Ireland wimped out and your prime minister signed Hitler's condolence book!
THthefirst 2 months ago
@THthefirst Yes i agree in ww2 the english were right in there cause,but in all fairness how many nations have had to fight the brits for there freedom,and eire gov could never have joined the brits in ww2 after the brit conduct in eire in the war of independance only 20 yrs b4 eg,bloody sunday in dublin,,the burning of cork city,the black and tansconduct in ireland,it wasnt a fact of not fightn the germans in ww2 it was a fact that the irish gov cundt hv joined on the british side
PATRICKEIRE 2 months ago
@PATRICKEIRE OK, so if you are right that Irish neutrality was explained for the reasons you say, why did the Irish PM of the day actively and positively decide to sign the book of sympathy for Hitler's death? That's a bit different from just not fighting alongside the Brits, surely? It suggests pro-Hitler sympathy.
The nations that have fought a war against Britain for independence are USA, India and South Africa. That's it. Three countries out of about twenty in the commonwealth.
THthefirst 2 months ago
@PATRICKEIRE That said, many Irishmen of course volunteered to fight against Hitler for the British army and in 1914-18 many Irishmen also volunteered to fight for Britain. It is part of the complex and not always rational relationship between Britain and Ireland. I do not doubt that Britain did bad things in Ireland, but then attocities have been committed on both sides over the years, that's for sure. The sad thing was Home Rule would have been given to Ireland in 1914 but for the war.
THthefirst 2 months ago
Another American:
This battle evokes the deepest feelings of sorrow and desperation. I Watch the footage of the three soldiers cut down while on their futile charge, watch it over and over. Seems like one spray from a single machine gun. try to imagine who they were, young guys. Probably told jokes and lauged a lot like you Brits do. What about the Kraut on the machine gun? Did he sign up to slaughter innocent, defenseless young men as they lumbered across a mile of open field? Sad. No words.
lalcoolxo 3 months ago
U DID A GOOD JOB. DON'T BEAT URSELF OVER THE HEAD. & READ JOHN KEEGAN!
mozellar 4 months ago
The red Poppy wasan utterly inspirational symbol which has come to mean so much to so many. One slight contrary observation that I have always felt though where the rememberance of our dead of war is concerned. I have often felt that in using the word GLORIOUS on the Cenotaph in Whitehall - how inappropriate this adjective is. I see nothing glorious is dying with one's face blown off lying in some rat infested trench. The words could have simply been inscribed "The Honoured Dead". More fitting.
mediumal57 5 months ago
mad to think that the first world war kind of started in 1870....and didnt really finish till 1995
excrutiated 6 months ago
a complete waste of humanity. the game of empires.
acerb45666555 6 months ago
WWI was not our war. So America didn't like to get involved in Europe's wars over the smallest things; and that's a bad thing? WWI is the perfect example. One guy gets shot, so sudenly the whole continent is at war? WWI: most senseless butchery in history. Just think where we could be if Europe had placed its energy in things more productive than killing people. We would be living on Mars by now! Thank God the world will never let it happen again!
Dauntless07 8 months ago
@Dauntless07 I have one thing to say to you, 9/11.
FindRealHipHop 6 months ago
@ToaJoe I don't minimize the losses, I was merely pointing out that the U.S. were late to the war, suffered far less, but obviously had the potential to infuse huge amounts of men and material into the battle if it had lasted. Or...perhaps if the U.S. had suffered as the British, French and Russians had, they would have pulled out and said it isn't worth it! Gone home licking their wounds. We'll never know.
moontwpman 8 months ago
@ToaJoe I believe the war was motivated partly (at least on Germany and Austria-Hungary's part) by imperialism and the desire to increase colonization. A clash of imperial powers if you will. Why would a republican democracy want to entangle themselves in that? It would have been similar to European powers sailing over to fight in the U.S. Civil War.
moontwpman 8 months ago
My only point was that the Americans really didn't feel like they had a dog in the fight, so there was strong resistance to getting involved until the sinking of U.S. ships. Can we agree that the war was an incredible waste of life, and men were squandered by incompetent leaders who didn't understand the tactics and weapons they faced on the "modern" battlefield?
moontwpman 8 months ago
@moontwpman My apologies, I thought you were a southern state Christian flag waver, a historic illiterate.
But I'm afraid fresh American ground troops really didn't make much difference. The royal navy blockade had been strangling Germany as early as 1916 to near starvation, and French troops kept the deadlock with Germany. That is not a sustainable situation. Even with the additional eastern front troops, Germany was doomed by 1917. You can't sustain an army without food.
ToaJoe 8 months ago
@ToaJoe I don't disagree, but with the Russians out of it due to the Bolshevik Revolution, if Germany could have held on in the West, they might have managed to pick off Entente one-by-one...not militarily, but if they could have gotten either England or France to make a separate peace, the end result would have been a better one for Germany. What i find interesting is their whole premise going into the war.
moontwpman 8 months ago
@ToaJoe Their whole battle plan was based on the early twentieth century plans developed by von Schlieffen that assumed the Russians couldn't mobilize faster than several months. The German war plans therefore called for a sweep through the Low Countries to knock France out before Russia could mobilize...then they could turn East. No two-front war. Russia had upgraded railroads and got troops to the front faster than anticipated...siphoning off German and Austrian troops to the east.
moontwpman 8 months ago
@ToaJoe Of course the other fatal flaws were in von Moltke's modifications which weakened the German right flank & didn't sweep wide enough to envelope the French (& English/Belgian) left, & the invasion of Belgium which guaranteed England's entry into the war. Of course, I don't know how you can sweep around the French left flank without going through Belgium and Luxembourg but there you are! I also think the French were crazy to think that agressive attacks and elan were enough to face MG's.
moontwpman 8 months ago
@ToaJoe Why are you being so vicious? First off, I'm actually British, and one of my relatives went over the top at the Battle of the Somme and later lost a leg and suffered shrapnel wounds. I've also lost relatives in WWII, along with having my grandparents and parents live through the Blitz.. I am WELL AWARE of the British casualties on the first day of the Somme and I intended in NO WAY to minimize their loss and intended no disrespect to the fallen.
moontwpman 8 months ago
Could we please not have any more videos cobbled together from material we are already over familiar with accompanied by mournful music and only suitable for the hooked-on-grief brigade.
Any historian knows full well these men were ordinary blokes like you and me trapped in extraordinary circumstances and trying to stay uninjured and alive.
My Grandfather was one of them and in WW2 my Dad was too. Neither of them had any time for this sort of histrionics.
DavidJPitt 8 months ago
HOW CAN THE MUDERING DRUG DEALING SCUM THAT CALL THEMSELVES THE UVF COMPARE THEMSELVES TO THE BRAVE MEN THAT FOUGHT AT THE SOMME.....TURNING IN THERE GRAVES IM SURE! THE WARS OVER NOBODY WANTS YOU .....FUCK OFF!
pikeonfly1 9 months ago
We shall NEVER forget.............Nor shall we learn...Fking Politicians!
chucklepants69 9 months ago
For the sake of historical accuracy and all that, 19,240 British killed or died of wounds and 38,000 wounded on the first day of the battle of the Somme. Horrific figures but not the 58,000 killed as this film suggests. Doesn't make it any better and I don't mean to detract from the sentiment of the film because I think it was made in the spirit of remembrance and respect. Just giving a 'heads up'.
alexandermorison 9 months ago
Salute the men who lost their lives. Salute those brave and proud.
Honor the struggle of these men. May their tales be spoken loud.
Be it in the past or present, many a soldier shall fight.
Defending his own homeland, and what he believes is right.
MultiHydralisk 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
100.000 nin bile bile ölüme gittiği başka ordu başka asker yok.
garanti veriyorum.-10 derecede 10 km yürüyemezsiniz.bunu o civar bölgelerde(sivas-erzurum-erzincan vs.) büyümüş olan bütün askerler biliyorlardı.hem de açtılar,çıplakdılar ama yine de yürüdüler.çünkü evliylar,erenler geldiler onların gözlerine göründüler.o cennetlik ordu hiç ağlamadı,hep kuran okudular ama belli bir süre sonra sadece rüzgar uğultusu ve tipi sesi duyuluyordu çünkü onlar artık ALLAH larının yanındaydılar.
77sakar 1 year ago
This is whothey insult when their burn our poppies. I cried.
Olekander 1 year ago
Comment removed
supermorshu 1 year ago
One day and 58,000 lives gone their souls departed,brothers in arms,friends,fathers,sons.To you my friends I salute you for you have made us all proud.The death of so many for so little gain,You go to hell and back and ultimately
you go to a safe home with the Lord, your Lord my Lord.
God bless you My forefathers , for you made my home a better place.
ultramarine1234 1 year ago
JEW WAR MAKER
batalion666 1 year ago
Brave Men One And All !
ASMARA1968 1 year ago
how many people died altogether
PuNiShxXUnFiTxX 1 year ago
@PuNiShxXUnFiTxX about 1,238,000 the whole 4 month campaign of the somme
ultramarine1234 1 year ago
@ultramarine1234 ? it was something like 60'000 british lives or french and british or maybe u saying the hole war?
supermorshu 1 year ago
@supermorshu 64,000 in the first 5 hours i believe but the Somme campaign there was about a million I think died.
ultramarine1234 1 year ago
God Bless! You alll!
wembley05 1 year ago
I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in. ~George McGovern
This is for both sides of the confrontation.
richcoolerearth 1 year ago
The heart of British youth is strong! Respect for battles past remains. As long as respect remains we have hope. God save the Queen.
dazzajlee 1 year ago
What ALL of you should be pissed about is (A) the absolute UNNECESSARY World War, and (B) the slaughter of MILLIONS of OUR OWN PEOPLE on BOTH sides. 58,000 British IN ONE DAY! FOR WHAT!? Over 1 MILLION European men on both sides. FOR WHAT!? How many Beethovens, Planks, Chaucers, Tolkiens, Kafkas, Brechts, were killed in that single day? Think of the children they might have sired. As a racial group, Whites are the LEAST numerical. We should NEVER genocide ourselves like this again!
19Truth53 1 year ago
@19Truth53 The war was not absoultly un-necessary. The German elite, rightly or wrongly, realised they would be outclassed and out competed in coming decades if they did not launch a European war to better both or either their colonial or continental empire and/or position. Also the Entente nations could not allow a new Super-German state. Also a number of countries' freedom was protected in this war; Belgians and Serbians view the war as very important!
fp470 1 year ago
Baloney!
19Truth53 1 year ago
@fp470 I think you've unfairly laid the all the blame for the war at the feet of the Germans, when in actual fact it was the Austro-Hungarians who were to blame. The Germans share the blame for many things, such as blindly and unequivocably supporting to Austria-Hungary in their unreasonable demands on Serbia. The whole thing could have been avoided, but nobody particularly wanted to avoid a war they thought would be short and possibly a good thing for their own particular country.
moontwpman 8 months ago
@moontwpman Revisionist Historians have found Germany to be at fault for the War, a sympathetic historiography to Germany has been taught in schools of 'everyone at fault' and as such has clouded the issue. The British and French wanted to avoid war, Britain was coming out of a recession and France's leftist/socialist government was pacifist and pro-internationalist. The work of Fritz Fischer, Sheffield, Bond and other recent historians have used documents to demonstrate German guilt.
fp470 8 months ago
I wish My country the U.S would actually care about history,I feel alone.nobody I ever talked to cares about it, I am actually depressed on how nobody cares i just want some people to care,but nobody does. I wish i never lived in a country with all of these blood thirsty tyrants,but that wish never will come true anytime soon.
Conquistador1599 1 year ago
@Conquistador1599 I agree with you and I am sick of the ignorance that spews from from their mouths. I grew up with history. When I was young my Dad took me to his Civil War reenactments and I learned to love history. Everytime i would learn something new I would research the hell out of it. Which is how I became interested in the Great War. This thirst for knowledge led me to write a Historical Fiction novel about WWI called Destroyed by the War. I hope you find more people who love history.
MajorPatMcClelland 1 year ago
@MajorPatMcClelland Well I accept that you made a huge contribution in ww2 as did the other members of the "big three" the British Empire, and the Soviet Union, but when Americans talk about contribution in ww1 I get really pissed off I mean come on you only fought for 6 months!
NorthernerMatty123 9 months ago
@NorthernerMatty123 In my comment I am not saying that the US made a tremendous contribution in the Great war but my Great Grandfather Jens Pedersen went behind enemy lines despite being wounded to rescue a wounded comrade. Though his contribution to the war effort was small. His contribution to my family was great. Had it not been for him I would not be a US citizen. Plus destroyed by the war is a historical fiction about an Irishman in the Great War...America is not even mentioned in the book.
MajorPatMcClelland 9 months ago
Comment removed
alexandermorison 9 months ago
@MajorPatMcClelland Well mate, the Jerries had extra troops available in 1917 due to the Ruski Revolution. They stuck the whole lot on the Western front. BUT they knew the Doughboys were on their way in and that disjointed their strategy and made them panic. The 1917 Jerry offensive threatened to overwhelm the Allies with the French in open revolution as well (I am a Brit). They knew that they had to win the war there and then. Your lads did sterling work in the Argonne. Thank you Yankees!
alexandermorison 9 months ago
@MajorPatMcClelland Research x3.....tell you great grandfathers story......sounds like a heroic one. both for Country and for family.....I'd buy it.
chucklepants69 9 months ago
@NorthernerMatty123 I have to say mate, that's a bit mean. The French army in 1917 revolted and wouldn't fight until Petain took over. We were the only fighting army on the Western front and in open retreat against Kaisershlacht because of the huge numbers of extra Germans freed from the 140 mile Eastern front. The US entry into the fray panicked the Jerries and their capitulation would not have happened without the Doughboys. Their entry into the fray also gave the French fighting spirit.
alexandermorison 9 months ago
omg,omg:(((
SAYLORIFF 1 year ago
well. WW1 and WW2 were both bad wars, there was nothing GREAT about it, except that they're over and done with and were won by the allied forces USA,Britain France and Russia alike.
DragonWorldProducts 1 year ago
God bless you mate
oldstuffandcollect 1 year ago
i tried to comment. i tried to quote official figures but the us military stopped me . join them and die. or join and be lied too, BE GOOD GIRLS - I hate you but you died for freedom!
Templar1999 2 years ago
a great tribute thankyou
oldstuffandcollect 2 years ago
20,000 die 60,000 were wounded and the dead. being 40,000 deaths too much is just dumb
thetruthabouthepc 2 years ago
In Belgium we honour those brave men every day since 1928! by blowing "the last post EVERY DAY at 8 PM" at the "Menenpoort" poort means gate. I can not imagine that it could be me,standing there, if I was born in the early 20th century.
walscro 2 years ago 4
Actually it was 58000 casualties, 20000 dead.
jarviss64 2 years ago
Cheers, also looking back. This was one of the first films I ever watched on Youtube.
Much respect.
mrst269 2 years ago
Whats the hymn in the background called?
mrst269 2 years ago
@mrst269 im not sure of the songs title but it may be called, going home.
looby5569 2 years ago
Dvorak 9the symphony "from the new world" movement 2: Largo
njbscheepers 2 years ago
Over 1 million men lost in all. Nothing at all gained. War is a great thing.
matrags 2 years ago
Look at this guy.... II WW Freedom vs Tyranny... kkkkkkk... the second II ww was fought for the same reason as the I ww
right ...which means you have money I go and take it from you ... that's it... Look at Africa ...is there any super power fighting to free than from tyranny ...
UkCSantos 2 years ago
25000 Canadians lost
88Schutz 2 years ago
@wilkester: this movie is about WWI. The British, Canadians, Australians etc. fought against Imperial Germany, NOT Nazi Germany. Fighting Nazis was in world War II. World War I was fought between countries with similar political and almost identical economic systems. On the Allied side was Imperial Russia, an autocracy - so this wasn't a war about freedom vs. tyranny. Niall Ferguson's "The Pity of War" is worth reading for a nuanced view of it all.
heridfel 2 years ago
Such a waste
PhilipDK5800 2 years ago
I wish people could stop posting immature comments. Show some respect for the soldiers who gave their lives for their loved ones and their countries, whatever country it may be.
And also I dont understand why Americans get so proud of themselves thinking they saved everyone else in this war, and WW2. You really should educate yourselves more on what actually happened throughout the entire war, not just the year or so your country participated in. You just sound like uneducated fools.
UKShibby 2 years ago 31
Don't GENERALIZE all Americans, makes you sound uneducated. I understand that America almost sided with Germany in WWI. Just be grateful that we "helped" each other, and that we have somewhat peace now, period!
Spins44 2 years ago
although WW1 was almost entirely British won, (comparitively, the French helped too, as did the Russians for a bit) without the Lend-Lease program (created before the US actually entered) Britain could very well have not been able to win WW2. America also supplied the Soviets with essential materials. US manpower did not win the war, its industrial might did, and yes i do think Americans have a right to be proud, we did fight off the Japanese (with a large amount of help from the Aussies).
argosime 2 years ago
Was bistn du für ein Schbassd argosime? Hobbies: Killing Juden. Dreckige Nazisau! Und lern mal Geschichte......Der erste Weltkrieg überwiegend von den Briten gewonnen. Bei dir is wohl jeder Verstand sofort verloren gegangen als dich deine Mutter damals rausgeschissen hat.
machierl 2 years ago
yes... it took until 2009 for the British to stop paying off WW2 dept to the US. It sounds a little SHAMEFULL that a nation should begger itself to finish Hitler.. but the USA is still proud to declare it! and then WE fought other bastards but you USA think we should be grateful?
Standing alone while the US makes a profit
Templar1999 2 years ago
@argosime You really need to read some books. I suggest Barbara Tuchman's excellent "Guns of August" for causes and the first month of the war, and Hew Strachan's "The First World War". The French played a very big part in WWI and have the losses to show for it. To say the British won...or that the US saved the Entente are neither totally false or totally accurate. I say that as a Brit living in America.
moontwpman 1 year ago
moontwpman, very true. I would add to the list of "must read": A. Soljhenytsin, "August 14". Certainly one of the best books written on war, ever, by a man who knew what he was writing about.
Fridomfry 1 year ago
@UKShibby I totally agree with you.I visited Tynecot Cemetery a couple of years ago.To see the amount of white crosses is unbelievable.No one,and I mean no one could walk out of there without tears in their eyes as to the tragic waste of life and futility of it all.OK,whatever nation we are.Death has no scruples or morals.It will take us all.Lets just remember our gloriousdead in whatever way we wish too.
mensa29 1 year ago
@mensa29 Well said mensa. I took a walk from Ypres station where our boys got out of the train, through the Menin gate, past hellfire corner up the Menin road until I reached hill 62 (Santuary Wood). I walked back the same way, passing the many cemetaries until I got back to the Menin Gate. They played the last post as I arrived under its' arches as I read the names on it's walls. Words fail me at this point! Poor Blokes.
alexandermorison 9 months ago
@UKShibby nikka they proud because. listen to me if america wouldnt of joined ww1 and ww2 it would of bin a diff war . we all are in this together you get educated and stop saying stuff that you think. the allies british canada and russia. if u research the were losing. if you new italy they go on the winners side. they were on the german side. once america joined the war allies were winning. then italy traded germany because they started losing. learn somthing buddy
NarutoVids55 1 year ago
@NarutoVids55 yh but the only reason the americans joined the war was of pearl harbour.
RaWb3rRY11 11 months ago
@UKShibby not all of us are like that but most of us are dumnass i think its the schools all they ever talk about is american achivements
Killmaster851 6 months ago
This is what happens when you use outdated tactics against modern weapons. Frontal infantry assaults against fortified machine gun positions is suicide. But the bravery these men exhibited is commendable. Knowing that for a lot of them, this was their last day alive yet still waded into machine gun bullets is testimony to their convictions that what they're doing was right and just. God Bless those British soldiers. Every one of them. May the dead rest in peace.
P.S. I am an American.
UtahMike41 2 years ago 2
dude, everyone had old weapons by than, what knda douchedbag are you...
timoabrahams 2 years ago
Enough bickering and show respect for these heroes who will never be forgotten. Brittish, American, Canadian, Australian, I salute whoever stood up to the nazi tyranny that plagued Europe. True heros, they don't make them like this anymore
wilkester 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
you moron. You'd be speaking german if the US didn't FINISH the job the limeys couldn't. Go soak your bad teeth and shithead in a pint of lager some more fool. If it wasn't for Paton in Africa, ole Monty would've been pushed back into the sea. Amazing how you clowns chose to ignore the facts and run your silly hooligan mouth. Soccer Sucks! It's the dogs.
SenorDetesto 2 years ago
fucking idiot do yo really think the entente won the war only because the us joined the war. start reading history before you talk
fredrik961 2 years ago 2
Calm down Freddy! You´re wrong. The Entente only won the war because the U.S. joined it. What about you taking a book and start reading?
machierl 2 years ago
From an American:
If you think the US "won" WW1 you're the worst kind of uninformed clod, and all the Brit Commonwealth & French here calling you a moron are correct. I don't wish to be grouped with you, so please shut up.
Not to downplay our role in WWI, but we did not make near the sacrifices the above mentioned countries did.
We played a *much* larger part in WWII than WWI. On the other hand, who sacrificed the most, and contributed the most to winning WWII?
Soviet Union. No question.
Tikayyan 2 years ago 9
The Entente only won WWI because the U.S. joined it!! FACT! Not cus they beat Germany on the field as her army was undefeated and deep into enemy´s land in 1918! It was simply the hopeless fight against the never ending resources which the Entente suddenly had! I give a fuck about Brits or French Wisenheimers as I know the truth. And not the truth from the winner´s history books.....but from many books written by soldiers about both wars! And Russia (or Russian winter) won WWII, right!!
machierl 2 years ago
Opinion. US logistical support was there for years before the last year when our troops were in reasonable force. The bulk of the attritional work was done before we ever showed up in person. The final German offensives in WWI were exactly what they were in WWII -- last ditch efforts to force a negotiated peace rather than a loss.
All the capslock and exclamation points on Earth won't make opinion into fact, it just makes petulant internet ranting. With that, we part ways. Good luck to you.
Tikayyan 2 years ago
@Tikayyan oh my god an american like me whos sensible thank god any american who thinks that ehy won ww2 and ww1 all bu them selves should be put back in school but then that probable wouldnt work beacus all the schools talk about are american ahcivements
Killmaster851 6 months ago
@Tikayyan The United States deserves the same amount of respect as the British and French in WW1
TheSeanbwoii 5 months ago
@TheSeanbwoii Anyone that participated in WW1 deserves the same amount of respect as the British and French. That does not mean we made the same level of sacrifice. The Brits and French would have won WW1 without us just as surely as they would have lost WW2 without us and (particularly) the Soviets.
Tikayyan 5 months ago
@Tikayyan Of course they do. We might have won the war without the US but they did join for a reason not just for the sake of it. And the reason America didn't make as much sacrifice is because they were only in the war for 1 year and in that 1 year America lost over 160'000 soldiers. And yes the British would have lost WW2 without the US just like the US would have lost WW2 without the British. And of course the Soviets.
TheSeanbwoii 5 months ago
@Tikayyan I pretty much agree with you, though you of course oversimplify matters. I do not however entirely agree that Britain would have lost the war without US support. The lowest point and crisis moment for Britain was 1940, which she got through and won (Battle of Britain) without US military aid. With the Soviets likely to defeat Germany anyway, I think it is fair to say Britiain wouldn't have lost the war if she was on her own, but couldn't have won it on her own.
THthefirst 3 months ago
@machierl There is no doubt that the infusion of fresh American troops played a big part in winning WWI, not so much because they DID a majority of the fighting, but because the Germans knew that it would result in huge resources in manpower & weaponry. The sad fact is though, the British were slow to mobilize in WWI, & the Americans were very slow to join in both WWI & WWII. While they perhaps had less of a 'dog in the fight' in WWI, imagine what might have been avoided if they joined sooner.
moontwpman 1 year ago
@moontwpman Pardon me for doubting that bullshit you just posted. Fresh American troops played not only an insignificant role, but almost no role at all, in winning WW1. Wilson should have been hung for daring to even attend the peace talks.
ToaJoe 8 months ago
@ToaJoe If you read what I wrote, I said that the U.S. did not make a significant contribution in terms of actual fighting but their contribution was in the potentail. With a population around 100 million (estimates vary from 92 to 102 million) the U.S. had a greater population than any participant other than Russia and the combined British Empire. The fielding of an army of 2.8 million pales when compared to the armies the Entente fielded, the Central Powers knew the potential.
moontwpman 8 months ago
@ToaJoe By the summer of 1918 the U.S. was landing 10,000 fresh troops a DAY in France. To the Central Powers, already bled white by four years of fighting, that had to be a discouraging statistic, and one which they had to know they could never overcome. The U.S. army by the end of the war was around 4.7 million, and no doubt could have grown to 10 million easily if the war had continued.
moontwpman 8 months ago
@moontwpman You want to talk big numbers, eh, you stupid pratt? I'll give you some big numbers.
Total British deaths on the FIRST DAY of the Somme: 20,000
Total USA WW1 death toll: 110,000.
So, just over 1/5th of the total US deaths were equal to total British casualities on a SINGLE DAY.
You make me sick, you nationalist cunt. You know nothing about history, you are only interested in flag waving, therefore you insulting MILLIONS of dead soldiers. Fuck you!
ToaJoe 8 months ago
America only joined because of Pearl Harobur you twat plus you wouldnt be born if it wasn't for England you would be Canadian or Mexican or Indian but England colonised America so be grateful that you are alive
enjam 2 years ago
England did not colonise all fo America, The Dutch (you probably dont know this) founded New York (named New Amsterdam) and also settled most of the region. The Swedes also had a large number of forts and towns, and the French would have been mroe than willing to move in, so im sure without England, their would be a non-mexican/canadian/indian country, and besides most Americans are descended from Germans.
argosime 2 years ago
@enjam It was not just "England" that colonzied America but also the Scots and Welsh. Read your history and you'll see.
TartanMan 1 year ago
Small numbers of Welsh and a decent number of Scots but originally it was only the English and Spaniards and now if you look at a non-self reporting census you will see that English Americans make up the largest minority in the country.
NorthernerMatty123 9 months ago
The cowardly yanks came in when ww1 was nearly over. Like they did in ww2. They talk about America being the land of the brave, don't make me laugh.
microsoft57 2 years ago
Yeah, we apologizing for saving your sorry French/British asses. Now that we know how it all played out, I think we should have let the Germans run over you at the Second Battle of the Marne. Lets see...the only reason the allies won that battle was...hmmm...fresh American troops? I'm pretty sure that's the correct answer, from what I hear the ol' BEF was about to mutiny, as was the French Army.
jedijeff123 2 years ago
Hi FaceFlab, 58,000 did not fall on the first day. 20,000 fell on the first day of the battle of the Somme. By the time the battle of the Somme was over, Britain had lost 420,000. You need to get your facts right.
microsoft57 2 years ago
Sorry microsoft57 but FaceFlab is correct. Military records give the total casulties for July 1st 1916 as 57,470. I have posted the breakdown of this figure under the video 'Battle of the Somme- Real footage. Your figure of 20,000 is nearer the number killed which was 19,240. The word casulties refers to, killed; wounded; missing or taken prisoner,i.e. those no longer able to fight. The ammazing fact was that they were all British volunteers not conscripts.
Honour42GB 2 years ago
i cant say that anyone was courageous, when they were told by their officiers that they could stroll to the german lines. which most did. and then the maxims opened up and down the tommies fell
cheomire 2 years ago
well done a great tribute to those brave men of ww1 they will never be forgoten
oldstuffandcollect 2 years ago
Pffff little, England is alot bigger than scotland and wales. And just for your information england is a country......bosch prick.
matt2house 2 years ago
can please not fight about these people all soldiers are doing there job and british german american french are all heros in there own land
kmxkid 2 years ago
Germany 2 world wars, 1 world cup
Need I say anymore
ENGLAND!!!
matt2house 2 years ago
This was a tragic futile initiative. A weeks worth of artillery pounding the German line with no substantial effect. No man's land was a killing field, another example of weak strategic abilities of the Allied high command. Never forget the lads at the Somme. Love the choice of Dvorak "New World Symphonies" as the theme. No other music captures the majesty and inhumanity of the waste of war better. Well done!
bobbeth6 2 years ago
moving footage.
oldstuffandcollect 2 years ago
This Yank salutes the incredibly brave British forces who advanced into immortality on July 1, 1916, and for the tens of thousands who fell in the months that followed.. Many have forgotten their sacrifice. But I haven't. And I never will.
Greenandscaly 2 years ago 22
The problem was, it was a futile sacrifice in a pointless war that would only lead to an even worse one.
jedijeff123 2 years ago
I read the british alone lost 500.000 soldiers in WWI :( and total is 14 million. in WWII alone 12 million jews were massacred and then + soldiers :(
stew2407 2 years ago
the lost more than 500 000 but 12 millione jews in world war1? hä? what are u talking about??
SputnikSpeed 2 years ago
read it again, it says WW 2 (II=2)
stew2407 2 years ago
ok sry :D
SputnikSpeed 2 years ago
nps ;)
stew2407 2 years ago
RIP. Remembered morning, noon and night.
nacho1560 2 years ago 2
R.I.P All who fought - Never will be Forgotton
Durial321Real 2 years ago 3
No panguu it was horrible 58,000 just british killed on the first day and many more wounded.
eshaw201 2 years ago
Actually there were 20,000 British (and British Empire) soldiers killed on the first day of the battle and over 40,000 wounded. Casualties for the whole battle between 1st July and Mid November 1916 were 400,000 for the British forces.
penrecon 2 years ago
Wasen't it like 20.000 that died first day and 58.000 overall??
Panguu2 2 years ago
58000 casualties nearly 20000 of them dead dead
jordbyrne 2 years ago
Merci pour ce superbe document.
We will never forget.
Manuman59 2 years ago
John Mccrae May 1915 "In Flanders Field" Canadian Medical Officer in Boer War and WWI
cguids37 2 years ago
WW1 was actually a stalemate, much like Korea, and WW2 was more of a continuation, although in between the countries rebuilt and prepared to go at it again.
thegodofyou666 2 years ago
Music : Dvorak new world symphony
peterm3964 2 years ago
58,000 British soldiers didn't die on the first day. That is a myth. 19,000 died, there were over 58,000 casualties. Big difference. Great film and
a good tribute but let's have some facts here.
Petemac111 3 years ago
Dude, even if thats true... thats still a hell of a lot of people to lose.. and any loss is bad.. :( , so yano... R.I.P and 58,000 casualities bad
Durial321Real 2 years ago
The battle also went on for many months and it ended up the germans recapturing all the land the British had gained and a bit more if memory serves me right
ScrewtheEU1 2 years ago
The battle lasted from 1st July until November 1916, it's not correct that the Germans recaptured all the ground taken, in fact the result was that the Germans did retreat, but only by a small amount and the result was very limited in terms of gains by the Allies.
penrecon 2 years ago