Dispatches On War (Part IV)

Feroz,

Point taken about you not explicitly mentioning the bad generalship of the British but your disclaimer is somewhat disingenous. ``Blame the Generals`` is the undercurrent of the first part of your narrative. The description of the ``parade ground`` advance, hiding the news from the public, the inability to fathom that the very nature of war had changed, surely all this impies incompetence on somebody`s part?

The second part of your narrative I would also beg to differ with (somewhat). While the ``War Poets`` certainly wrote endlessly about the horror and futility of the Great War, they all did their duty. Graves, as you no doubt know from his autobiography, was quite a savage taskmaster, drill instructor and trainer--something that was needed if these new recruits were to have any hope of surviving for a few months and recoup the cost of their training. Far from the Alan Alda-like Hawkeye Pierce character you imply, during the War he knew his duty and did it without endlessly criticizing God, King and Country (although he did savage the Blimps, his immense pride in his Royal Welch Fusiliers is apparent). I think the spurning of Britain in ``Goodbye to All That`` (one of the three best war memoirs ever written) is one of the reasons that his best friend, Siegfried Sassoon, broke off their friendship. At the start of WWII, Graves tried to enlist again but was turned down by the Army. Hardly the actions of a man who was disgusted by everything that he had seen and experienced! Perhaps it was this rejection by England that caused him to ``hate`` her so passionately?

Here is the last verse of Graves`s ``Retrospect: The Jest of the Clock:``

Poor fool, knowing too well deep in his heart
That he`ll be ready again: if urgent orders come,
To quit his rye and cabbages, kiss his wife and part
At the first sullen rapping of the awakened drum,
Ready once more to sweat with fear and brace for the shock,
To greet beneath a falling flare the jests of the clock.

Sounds like he was writing about himself....

However, you must remember that Graves and to a certain extent many of the other War Poets, were people who did not fit into the ``normal`` staid bourgeois life of the British middle/upper-middle class. Even if the War had not taken place, they would have been like the current US professors of cultural studies or literary theory who endlessly criticize their government, society, morality and mores for no other reason than the fact that this makes them feel intellectually superior to the ``stupid people`` who are richer/more-successful/smarter/whatever than themselves.

The Battle of the Somme certainly did not destroy the British soldiers faith in his officers or in the gentry or the officer class. It was the French Army that mutinied, not the British. British troops knew that their officers paid more dearly than the NCOs and ORs. Remember that famous saying, ``The job of a second lieutenant is to die well?`` Well they died in their tens of thousands. Go to Oxford, Cambridge, or any English public schools and do into their Chapels. The Wall of the Dead seems endless.

On the German and Italian side, the Great War, far from encouraging the kind of feckless pacifism you describe in Britain, led to the glorification of war, speed, and modernity. The German Freikorps had more than a streak of nihilism in them, as did the Italian Fascisti. The core of the Freikorps and SA were the Frontsoldaten who wanted nothing more than another chance to make Deutsch Uber Alles again. Hitler himself served, and was wounded badly, in the trenches. Goering was the last commander of the Jagdgeschwader Richthofen, the famed Jasta 11, and a winner of the Pour Le Merite.

Finally, while the Oxford Union may have voted 275 to 173 that ``this house will in no circumstances fight for its king and country,`` the man who drafted the motion was not a pacifist and loyally served the British propaganda effort against Germany during WWII.
When war actually came, all of Britain again fought; and under Churchill, the arch reactionary and warmonger (albeit after he was on gardening leave for quite a few years).

This post is getting quite long so I`ll end it here. I think you are reading too much into the Somme and how a small group of misfit intellectuals reacted to it. Yes, war is horrible and the Great War was indeed hell on earth in the trenches BUT it did not change anything permanently. You read far too much into the writings of too few.

Keep up the good work!

Nolli illegitimi carborundum

Cheers!

Ferozek/Malik99: I am not sure if any one event in a battle or the whole battle itself, can really result in an evolution of thought, for the next generations. I think one can safely say that WWI, as a whole did result in an evolution of thought. And then by the end of WWII, that evolution was complete, i.e. Western Europe had seen so much death and destruction that they have become completety antagonist to war; at least within Europe. So much so that the master initiator of wars, Germany, has turned into a complete pacifist, overturning govts. which even support other countries in war, much less get into one themselves.

But can one battle or event have that impact? One could argue that the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan could have resulted in an evolution of thought, i.e. no one was willing to use nukes, again, after what they have seen.

Interestingly, the most pro-war country, today, in Europe is actually Britain. And Russia, which lost the most citizens in both WWI and in WWII is (was) the most pro-war country in the world; statistically, second only to the USA (which averages a direct or indirect attack on another country once every two and a half years).

The USA is so pro-war because its citizens have never seen destruction themselves. However why have Russia and the Brits remained pro-war (or at least their govts.) even after Somme etc.? While the Germans and then the French are amongst the most anti-war. My guess is because Brits and Russians have never lost a war, for a long time. The Russians pro-war-ness stopped after they lost in Afghanistan........The USA lost Vietnam, but kept going, because it did not see destruction, close to home like the Russians had seen in WWII

So perhaps the two criteria for being very anti-war are:

- one has to see a massive amount of death and destruction, through a war at home
- one has to lose a major war

I have found that very few civilians can picturize battles, wars and even ammunition. Hence, they cannot really understand offensive wars. Which is why it is so easy to get a population riled up to attack another. The only thing they do understand are loved ones that they may have lost. So if one tells someone, that 100,000 tons of ammunition was dropped on country X, through 3000 sorties, consisting of 1,000 laser guided bomb, 5,000 cluster boms, 50 daisy cutters, and 10,000 rockets, they cannot visualize it, unless their own neighborhood happened to have been hit. However, those of us who have seen what weaponry can do, can visualize it.

Similarly, if someone is told that 5,000 people or 50,000 people died, they are not affected, unless their own son or brother died, as a soldier or civilian, and they felt it close to home.

This is why civilian leaders and civilians in general, are far more gung-ho on wars than soldiers.

feroz # 15 writes ``I am afraid that Ana was right and you are using this article as a pretext to engage in some ``west bashing``.``

Feroz, i am afraid that you and Ana jumped the gun and are dead wrong on that. I was simply trying to make a point that with history being so subjective and often written by the winners, I am not sure if we should tie a concept as grand as ``evolution of thought`` to one incident. Indeed 60,000 british troops may have died in one day, but I can name you several ``Sommes`` in the history of war.

We can call certain events as ``defining`` events, or the ``straws that broke the camel`s back``, but to put the kind of definitive emphasis that Feroz has put on Somme would make any historian cringe.

Re: malik99 # 7

We can disagree on the lethality of a battle or a war, and can continue to debate the importance of such battles/wars endlessly. There is no distinction in death and I was a bit dismayed to read your comments about ``invaders`` perceptions of war. I am afraid that Ana was right and you are using this article as a pretext to engage in some ``west bashing``.

Ciao

Fuzair #11: I think you are correct.

One cannot simply blame Generals, for doing what they are trained and taught to do. They are trained to fight wars based on certain theories and techniques, developed by analysing previous wars. It is only when those techniques are tested in actual battle that their shortcomings are revealed. One can, thus, only blame them if they deploy the same techniques, even after the shortcomings have been highlighted.

There have been very few Generals in history, who have had enough impact on warfare to the point that they have changed the way battles are fought. One can count them on ones fingertips:

Changez Khan the most successful warrior of all time, would be at the top of the list. I read somewhere that one out of every 200 people in the world have some Mongolian blood in them. He is the only man to have conquered Russia, after invading it. Something that even Napoleon and Hitler failed at. Had the Mongolian generals not returned after their leaders suddden death, to elect a new leader, and had their conquerors not adapted local customs (converting to Islam etc.) Mongolians would have ruled the knonwn world. In fact, had the extremely large Mongolian fleet not sunk, due to a storm, off the coast of Japan, they would have easily conquered Japan also; thereby controlling Russia, China, Japan, Middle East, Central Asia and Central Europe. And then I assume, they would have eventually conquered Western Europe and South Asia. In fact, Taimur, who moved into India, was technically a Mongol also; albeit a Muslim Mongol.

Basically, the Mongolians, under Chengez, changed warfare, with their ability to move and deploy so quickly, i.e. speed.........

Napoleon would be another. He was a Brigadier by the age of 26. Again, not innovative like a scientist, but a great student of military tactics. His idea of turning divisions into independent corps, which can move and fight on their own, in a self-contained manner, is something that is the basis of all armies, even today. Had he not invaded Russia, and just fought in Western Europe, everyone in Europe may have been speaking French today.

He was obsessed with defeating the Brits, and may have eventually done it, had he not gone after Russia. Same mistake that Hitler made. Interestingly, I read that Tipu Sultan, another person ahead of his times by South Asian standards, was in communication with the French duing those days. Had the French not been defeated, who knows what kind of alliance they would formed against the Brits in South Asia.

Obviously, every General cannot be a Chengez Khan or Napoleon.......

What is interesting is that, in all cases, the country with better politicians, eventually defeats the country with better generals. Britain hasn`t produced a Napoleon, nor a Rommel. Yet it defeated both the French and the Germans, again and again............

Re: # 11

Fuzair, since I never mentioned any general or any general`s military virtue or skill or lack thereof, I am not sure, where you got the impression that I was blaming the generals. I am afraid that it is you, who has fallen into the trap of assuming the article was about military tactics. You mentioned that I had failed to appreciate the nuances and had painted a one sided picture. I am afraid, that in wishing to view the article in solely military-tactical terms, you yourself have sought to provide a one sided picture devoid of the nuances, which you mentioned that I had ignored. :)

In case you missed the point, the article was not about military tactics per se but was about the perceptions of war.

Ciao

Thanks to everyone, who has posted a comment. I

I will post a general comment on the nature of the article, here, and deal with individual comments individually.

I think, that there seems be a general misconception, amonst the readers, about the article that it seeks to analyze the battle of Somme. The article is about the perceptions of a British generation, which fought Somme and their attitudes towards war and how, Somme influenced their perceptions on war. The article is not about the politics of World War One and neither is it an ``intellectual exposition`` of the military tactics of the war, as some of the the readers seem to think. The basic theme of the article is about humanism; humanity and humanity`s views on war as seen through the eyes of one particular British generation. I have used various poems and quotations to show, how one particular British generation was brought up to glorify war and how the same generation reacted to outbreak of war and what was the same generation`s view on war after having survived the Great War.

In my opinion, only Ana and Romair, Tahmed32 and Dost-Mittar seemed to have grasped its evocation of a human suffering, which results from war. The article is, and was, about the articulation of a generation`s views on war as seen through their own words, which is why I had posted ``Words of a Generation`` as a sub-title to the article. By tracing their words before and after an event, which I chose as Somme, the idea was to showcase how their attitudes towards war in particular evolved from a romantic admiration to a cynical disdain of war itself.

Ciao

While the butcher`s bill at the Somme was indeed horrendous, I fear that Feroz has (partly) fallen into the trap of blaming the WWI generals without (complete) justification.

This is from Dr. Forczyk`s review on amazon.com of Niall Ferguson`s revisionist tripe, ``The Pity of War:``

``Unable to understand the real doctrinal and technical military problems posed by the Western Front, Ferguson joins the crowd of academics who decry the ``waste`` of lives and plead for any alternative. The fact that narrow frontages, defended in depth are always difficult to penetrate (not just Ypres in 1917 but Kursk in 1943 and the Suez and Golan fronts in 1973), means that the problem was not unique to the First World War. The price of victory is not always cheap.``

Romair and Feroz are correct, again an old argument, that in WWI, advances in defense technology had far outpaced offensive technology. Don`t forget, the US Civil War foreshadowed many of the same situations as WWI and the casualty rates were also appalling. The Civil War and WWI suffered from many of the same issues. Hastily raised and so poorly trained armies are not capable of complex battlefield maneuvers. The most you can go with the soldiers is to point them in the right direction and hope for the best. The British (some, not all) marched slowly across in line abreast order because they were not trained to a high enough level to do anything different. Such as advance across in a broken skirmish line behind a rolling barrage (Brit artillery wasn`t that good either).

The artillery barrages tore up the ground and made it almost impossible for heavily laden infantry to cross quickly. Communications broke down and so local advances could not be exploited. The Old British Regular Army had died at Mons; calling themselves the Old Contemptibles (after the Kaiser`s term of derison for them), they had stopped the Germans in 1914 but had been decimated. While General Kitchener did manage to raise new divisions quickly, they were not as well trained or as capable as the old regular army. Hence there were serious limitations as to what could be expected of them on the battlefield, i.e., Hutier tactics were not possible by these troops.

It is also incorrect to say that the British did not try innovations but just kept throwing bodies at the enemy trenches. Tanks were used for the first time at the Somme in an effort to break the stalemate of trench warfare. The British learnt many important military lessons, albeit at a very heavy cost, that they used to good effect later on in the war. I don`t think you can legitimately call the WWI generals ``incompetent,`` within the limitations of their training and experience, they were trying to deal with a very rapidly changing military technological scenario.

While I don`t think I will take issue with Feroz`s overall characterization of the Battle of the Somme, the facts are actually much more nuanced than the one sided picture he paints.

Somme was the epitome of the incompetence of a military mind on both sides. It also proved that military logic is mostly behind its time as soldiers fight for a war they fought last.

Suggest leaf through `psychology of the military incompetence`

Cheerios

One would like to think that articles like this would get more hits on Chowk. But unfortunately, it won`t. Just goes to show, how Chowk has been turned into (or turned into, by itself) a site where people are more interested in yelling at each other, and pushing agendas, rather than discussing history, science, poetry, art etc........Anywho:

Ijaz_Gul #6: I would tend to agree. I think WWI was a point where technology had advanced to a point, where it could do major damage. But not to a point, where it could quickly overawe the opponent. Due to this, it resulted in trench warfare, where each side would lose thousands of soldiers, but would only advance a few yards......

By WWII, technology had completely taken control. And the Germans were able to move through quickly, because they were able to overwhelm their opponents, not only in strategy, but in technology, also.......

Malik99 #7: Somme was definitely important. As were a lot of other battles, in history. I think thought about war changes, not only due to war, but due to the advancement of strategy, ideas and technology also. Napoleon`s concept of corps. Liddlehart`s concept of lightning warfare, which would, ironically, be utilized by Guderian and the Germans under blitzkreig. Then the Americans usage of nukes. And now state and individual terrorism.........

with all due respect, the battle of somme is not given too much credit because it was one of those moments that was a watershed in the lives of the british, those who fought, and those who lost. agreed that we should examine events over time, but this battle was for the time it was fought, a symbol of horror in the number of lives that were lost just in that one battle and just in one day. the great war, supposedly the war to end all wars would affect those who were known as the war poets such as wilfred owen, siegfried sassoon, robert graves, and novelists such as virginia woolf in her characterization of septimus in ``mrs. dalloway.`` somme would according to some historians also be an example of the futility of trench warfare. talking about a battle in which approximately 60,000 soldiers were lost the first day is not giving it too much credit.

there have been many many horrors before this and many many horrors following this. and i`m sure that feroz`s intention is not to diminish any of those. of course any opportunity to be highly critical of the west is not lost on some people.

thus ends my participation on this board. . .

Feroz writes ``The day the Battle of Somme was fought would be an important event in the evolution of human thought about war.``

I believe the author is giving too much credit to a single event. The evolution of human thought about war has taken more or less the same trajectory as the evolution of human thought about world hunger or environment or child labor - with or without a ``Somme``. Granted, a hit on the reigning superpower has far larger a consequences than a hit of higher causualties on a tinpot country. Still, to box the evolution of thought to a single event is a bit of unjustice. Given the events that are taking place in world today, would the historians in 100 years tie them to 9/11/2001 or 1/21/2001(the oath taking ceremony of Bush) or the rise of evangelist/rightwing nexis in US in the 90s?

With history being a subjective subject, perhaps its better to look at the trends over a period of time. But if we must tie the evolution of human thought on war to a defining event, then it has to be the advent of TV and global media - whereby the news of killings and gore could now be instantly splashed across globe. THAT has perhaps contributed more towards how the invaders look at war than perhaps lessons of Somme.

Well Written. Here are my pennies on strategy.

First WW1 prolonged because military overlooked political controls. The original SCLLIFFEN Plan was changed by the incompetent Moltke Junior which envisaged wheeling from the right and getting between Paris and Calais within a fortnight, paralysing the French centre of gravity. Because the right was weakened, the offensive stalled near Verdun and Marne Europe got stuck in a ditch for many years to come.

Secondly, French generals were obssessed with Clausewitz who took napoleonic wars as his case study. Marshall Foch blindly followed the Levee en Masse based on frontal suicidal attacks making war look grandoise and chivalrous. So many French and British fell into the ditch. This is where Liddel Hart and Fuller also picked their biases against Clausewitz.

Third, Railways and telegraphy revolutionised logistics and communications in war. Whereas railways boosted the war staminas and hence more brave men to go to death, commanders got stuck with their telephones leaving companies and batallions leaderless in frontal assaults.

Fourth, it introduced air and tanks that were to form the basics of Blitzkrieg in WW2.

Fifth and most important it highlighted the social dimension of war. Not only more common citizens were ready to die, the humilation brought to Germans in Versailles backlashed in WW2.

Cheerios

Interesting.......

Dost-mittar #2: ``Indians and Pakistanis still have to develop this aversion.``

The wars fought by Pakistanis and Indians are microscopic, in comparison to those fought in Europe. They are not even wars. They are more like battles. The total deaths from all these wars is less than the deaths in WW I in one day. In addition, the Indo-Pak wars have been quite civilized, with hardly any civilian casualities.......

``French probably developed such aversion after the Napoleonic disaster in Russia.``

The country that has been completely devastated by European wars is actually, not France, UK, USA, or Germany. It is Russia. They have been invaded from all directions, and have defeated everyone (other than Genghis Khan). But those defeats have taken a heavy toll on them....

It was actually the French, and not the British, who fought the longest battle of WWI. The Battle of Verdun, fought between the French and Germans, is what actually started the Battle of Somme. Germans and French both lost around 350,000 people in this battle, alone. These figures are second only to the losses in Battle of Somme, described above......

Interestingly, the Germans were in both battles; fighting French in Verdun and French and Brits in Sommes. Germans lost 350,000 in Verdun and 500,000 in Somme!! Both these battles started in 1916. Verdun started in Feb and ended in dec 1916. At which point Somme started........

Pakistan and India have never seen anything close to this...........Hence have not developed this aversion.......

Having said that, the USA dropped more ammunition on Vietnam, than all the ammunition used by all forces in WW II!. And the USA killed 1 to 2 million Vietnamese. More people thaan all the inviduals killed in Somme and Verdun combined.............

Interestingly the larges ever attack on the Continental USA, in the past 150 years (?) was the one carried out by OBL recently, in which 4,000 people died. Americans have, thus, never experienced war on their own shores. They are always on the giving end. And are thus, still very pro-war.......

feroz: Well researched and well written article. Thanks.

While no doubt millions of men fought and died bravely in WWI - it is also true that the generals were incredibly callous and inept. And even more so, the political leaders on both sides who failed to prevent this war to begin with. The war was basically a challenge of the rising power of Prussia to the established power of UK and France. Statesmanship on both sides could have resulted in mutual accomodation. However, throughout the first decade of the 20th century, numerous attempts were made at arms disarmament by both sides - and failed. Because they failed to recognize the underlying political causes of the arms race. And when war ended, there was no victor in any realistic sense.

That, more than the sacrifices of sargeant tommy, are the lasting lessons of World War I.

feroz:

i would look at the British tragedy at Somme more as a military failure than a reason for british pacifism.
by the middle of the twentieth century, britain was being replaced by germany as a powerful military-industrial powerhouse. Germanys growth was unprecedented.

Sending men to their deaths without any regard to their lives or prospects of victory is just criminal. The samw happened during ANZA operation in Anatolia. Even during kargil, it was thought that the early rush to get troops up the hills without any regard to their safety was a rash decision.