Passchendaele 100 years on

[Erfolg]

David Davis's description of the initial acts that lead to WW1, are now generally accepted as what did occur. It is also interesting how our views on what is acceptable have changed in recent years.

The USA, in addition to the UK and most if not all of the western world, find state sponsored terrorism unacceptable. To that end, at least in principal, the western worlds reaction has broadly been the same as Austria, in very recent times.

Much of the other contributions that have high lighted both treaties of mutual support are also spot on, as providing the mechanisms.

One aspect that it rarely discussed, or acknowledged, were the varying interests, wishes to change the consequences of previous conflicts etc. The principal French wish to teach the Germans a lesson, for loosing to the Prussians (German Northern States) after picking a fight with a minor German State, which Bismark used to unite the German states (although he is also depicted a manipulating the situation, where the French thought they would gain territories etc). The forming had family implications with respect to the UK, Queen. An upstart cousin was now calling himself a Emperor (Kaiser) where she was portrayed as a mer Queen. Soon declaring herself Empress of India and Canada). Apparently Queen Victoria got herself uptight at Cowes, over the jumped up Cousin (soon to Kaiser William) having a yacht which eclipsed (at least in his opinion) than a UK royals yacht. There appeared to be quite a family squabble. German Industry was also threatening to eclipse the UK, also seen as unacceptable, at the highest levels. As others have outlined other issues, the atmosphere was toxic.

To of the allies major protagonists the UK and France, sought to put Germany in its place. The Germans had visions of an Empire similar to the UK. The Austrians probably were trying to shore up a failing Empire, as to the Ottomans, both of which were being threatened as cohesive states.

The irony of it all is that the USA became the foremost World power and The USSR came into being, with all the misery it caused for its own and other countries citizens.

I agree with those who see no real just cause for WW1. Its true legacy was reveal the vanity and the consequences of ambitions of Governments and some individuals, that propaganda as all but hidden. Just incredible amount of suffering by all ordinary citizens on both sides.

I only know of one relative lost in WW1, a uncle Herman (probably a 2nd uncle) on the German side.

Edited By Erfolg on 01/08/2017 13:28:38

[Don Fry]

Posted by ted hughes on 01/08/2017 08:31:45:

I think the pity of the 1st WW is not to do with the causes or reasons, but the futility of the tactics.

No-one had foreseen the power of the machine gun - it could be adjusted for a specific range, traverse back and fore ,was belt fed and provided a continuous impenetrable barrier.

This had never existed before.

Thousands of troops could be thrown at it (and they were) without success.

And to quote Dave Hopkin, "- the issue was how to break the overpowering advantage that prepared positions and machine guns and indirect artillery fire gave to the defence - that took time"

Actually the information was in part available to the British General Staff. It had been noted that troops were increasingly digging holes to survive in the American Civil war, the harbingers of industrial war were present. Simply dismissed as a colonial war of no consequence.

Before the Somme, the French had discarded advancing troops behind lifting barrages, timed on a stopwatch.They did not work the French found, and used artillery spotters who were able to see the shell fall. The knowledge was rejected, as advice from a lesser breed without the law. Look at the aircraft provided to allied pilots through most of the war, good enough for cannon fodder.

As a member of a family who traditionally provides the fodder for the guns, I would wish those Generals a Viking hell, to forever lie injured in a shell hole while slowly drowning in freezing water.

[XK50]

Within the setting outlined by Erflog, the fast expanding German navy had been rivalling the Royal Navy (who had "ruled the waves", world-wide, since Trafalgar!) for at least a decade. This was seen as a threat to our Empire trade. Fortunately, the only German ports were ar some hours steaming, across the North Sea, or tucked away in the Baltic - until Germany invaded Belgium.

Access to The Channel was a major factor for the Brits, in its decision to go to war. (A similar situation, but in reverse, exists today, between Russia, the Ukraine and the Black Sea [pace]).

That's why Ypres was seen as important; it blocked access to the Belgian Channel ports.

Returning to today, might I acknowledge the superb performance staged in the Ypres market square, on Sunday. I don't know who paid for it, but at a time of changing strategic direction for the Brits, it was a clear reminder to Belgium (and others) as to who their friends were.

Any thread on this theme must pay homage to those members of the Commonwealth, who supported Britain in its endeavours. We have kind of drifted apart, over the last 45 years, but they are not forgotten.

Finally, all hail The Commonwealth War Graves Commission! In an ordurous world, this remains a remarkable beacon of decency.

XK50

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by XK50 on 02/08/2017 13:29:04:

Finally, all hail The Commonwealth War Graves Commission! In an ordurous world, this remains a remarkable beacon of decency.

XK50

I would second that. In my experience they do a fantastic job of helping to keep up our promise that "we will remember them".

Both my children in turn went on the School Trip to Belgium and the WWI battlefields as part of their history studies. In both cases I was impressed when they came back with a very sound and deep understanding of the inenormity and inhumanity of what had happened. This was, I believe, thanks in large part to the work of the War Graves Commission in maintaining cemeteries and providing information in exhibitions etc. Its good to think that the memory of these young men and their tragic end, is safe with today's young generation, and I believe it is.

BEB

[Don Fry]

XK50, it was paid for by a UK government fund, financed by the fines levied on the banks for their (more than usual) dishonest and unethical activities.

Edited By Donald Fry on 02/08/2017 15:45:22

[XK50]

Thanks, Donald. How appropriate! I reckon it was money well spent on many, many levels - though, not all altruistic. I was reminded of "The Field of The Cloth of Gold", but that analogy shouldn't be stretched too far.

John

[Dave Hopkin]

Posted by Donald Fry on 02/08/2017 15:43:54:

XK50, it was paid for by a UK government fund, financed by the fines levied on the banks for their (more than usual) dishonest and unethical activities.

Edited By Donald Fry on 02/08/2017 15:45:22

If you are referring to the Commonwealth Wargraves Commission, you are totally wrong it has been paid for jointly by six commonwealth nations since its inception in 1917 on a pro-rata basis - and having visited and been humbled by the wonderful way those resting places are maintained

[onetenor]

Hi! My dad survived both the first and second Somme offensives and the Ypre Paschendale battle . Blightyed home with wounds 3 times and sent out to fight again.He developed a hatred of "BUTCHER HAIG " and would not wear a poppy except when in uniform as a tram/bus conductor required by his employers Liverpool City Corporation.The poppy was the symbol of the Haigh Fund origin While he agreed the poppy was appropriate it was sullied by bearing the Haigh name. He described to me the horrors of trench warfare .Bodies falling from thawing trench walls in captured trenches, the marsh that no mans land had become.The rats and lice and all the other things we have so often heard of.He was no braver than the next man but brave all the same. To add insult to injury he was moving gas shells ( not alone ) at Bovington camp . They were leaking and they all had gas damage to some extent Some were worse than others.Combine that with shrapnel in his lungs he was lucky to be able to work.. From 1940 when he married my mum ( Battle of Britain Sunday 15th Sep ) he was well looked after and despite problems arising from his injuries lived till he was 84 .Mum till 90. They bred 'em tough back then. Although as a drummer I could play bugle I can play the Last Post I couldn't do it in a Remembrance Parade.I got too emotional and lost my lip as it's called.

Brave men , and women too, in all wars I salute them all

[onetenor]

Apols for Anglizising Passchendaele

[Stuart C]

Surviving relatives of mine also refused to wear the Haig Poppy. It was many years before I found out why, as nobody wanted to talk about it in the family.

[Don Fry]

Posted by Dave Hopkin on 02/08/2017 17:09:00:

Posted by Donald Fry on 02/08/2017 15:43:54:

XK50, it was paid for by a UK government fund, financed by the fines levied on the banks for their (more than usual) dishonest and unethical activities.

Edited By Donald Fry on 02/08/2017 15:45:22

If you are referring to the Commonwealth Wargraves Commission, you are totally wrong it has been paid for jointly by six commonwealth nations since its inception in 1917 on a pro-rata basis - and having visited and been humbled by the wonderful way those resting places are maintained

I was referring to the special commemoration in the town square referred to by XK 50.

[Erfolg]

It may not necessaily Haig that was or is the issue with veterans. I now know that my own farther would not go back to Normandy, or have anything else to do with army reunions.

In my farther case, it became apparent, at the end of his life the issues for those who fought, just have not been recognised. The issue of your comrades dying along side of you, killing youths as they became part of the front line, mixed with older soldiers, taking actions to ensure the best you could, that you would survive, street by street fighting, if ordinary civilians died, well that is war, to wake up in a building that is a field hospital, where the dead are lying on the ground covered in frost and so on. Yet society did not recognise that these people paid a price that would continue to haunt them through out their lives.

I my fathers case, he was diagnosed with post traumatic stress at the age of 76. I could trigger a extreme reaction just bu alluding to certain things. By and large, nobody cared, other than his family, and we worried.

Yet it was not confined to soldiers these issue, civilians on both sides suffered. Imagine day after day being bombed, the USA during the day, the British at night. Fighter aircraft trying to kill anybody who moved.

Our parents and ancestors paid a high price due to wars.

My farther wanted nothing to do with commemorations. His views were those who actually fought, did not want to remember, those who drove trucks behind the lines, enjoy the reunions, theirs were a good war. That was his view, others see things differently.

Edited By Erfolg on 02/08/2017 20:01:34

[Devcon1]

By coincidence I've just finished reading Catastrophe Europe Goes To War by Max Hastings.

It covers the events that lead to the start of the war and it's events until the end of 1914.

It reinforced my view that Austria and Germany had to be opposed and sadly the war had to be fought but the methods and management of warfare at that stage were almost medieval with shocking consequences for civilian populations and soldiers as was graphically documented in the book.

All incredibly sad and sobering but punctuated with acts of selflessness by ordinary people lifted from ordinary lives into the horrors of conflict.

Sadly the aristocratic warmongers of the beligerants had no regard to the value of life and unnecessarily sent thousands to unnecessary deaths.

Would recommend the book for a real insight into the early part of the conflict.

It makes me truly thankfull for the sacrifices made by so many people of that period.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

The problem is of course that Hastings argument is only one view - certainly not the only one and not necessarily the right one!

For example see this argument which says we should not have gone to war, and contrast it with this argument! which argues it was essential that we did!

These are complex issues - I don't think it's so simple to definatively say it's "this way" or "that way". But I do believe that far, far, too may people died to justify the end result.

BEB

[David Davis]

The Great War is a major interest of mine.

I started off by feeling that most of the generals were butchers and bunglers but as a Second World War major once said to me, "If there had have been a way of winning that war without so many casualties, someone would have thought of it." Furthermore, if you compare the casualty rates of the Battle of Normandy in 1944, per division committed, per day, they exceded the casualty rates of the Great War battles, yet Montgomery is never regarded as a butcher.

You have to ask yourself what you would have done differently if you had been one of those Great War generals. Yes, sometimes generals made mistakes, General Gough for example repeatedly sent in the infantry behind an inadequate artillery barrage. When a general makes a mistake, the results are fatal for far too many. However, given the technology of the time and given the situation on the Western Front, the only way to succeed was to subdue the enemy positions with massive artillery fire and then send in the infantry. Sure, tanks and aircraft helped but the tank was pretty unreliable and extremely slow until 1918 and aircraft were not as effective as they were to become in another much worse conflict just over twenty years later.

My own family was affected by the war as were most British families. My grandfather's cousin, David John Brutus Davies, incredibly known as "Brutus," an artilleryman in the Canadian Army was killed in his sleep at the end of the Battle of the Somme by a German shell. He was twenty-nine years old and had served in the artillery for four years before the war, probably in a territorial unit. That shell took the lives of a further twelve men from his battery. He is buried in Pozieres Cemetery alongside three or four of his comrades. I have always assumed that there was not enough left of the rest of them to be worth burying.

In those days, if a soldier was killed, his relatives would write a brief biography which would be published in the newspapers. Such a letter was duly published by the Western Mail, purportedly written by his uncle, a Mr H Davies.

But there was no Mr H Davies in our family at that time. The letter was written by his mother, Miss Hannah Davies, but such was the stigma against illegitemacy and single parents in those days that she could not acknowledge in public that her only child had died in the cause of freedom and democracy.

We've moved on a bit since then.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Erfolg]

For me the question really is, should France have rushed to support a regime, that had engaged in State Sponsored Terrorism. I am making an assumption that not only was Austria aware that the assassination was directed by Serbia by the training and support of the assassins.

In my opinion, a balanced approach would have been to leave Serbia and Austria to sort out the issues between them. At that point i would have assumed that the Austrians would have won. The opportunity to apply pressure on the Austrians, could have lead to an agreement where the Austrians left Serbia etc for guarantees of future conduct. I know that this scenario is similar to the Prussians withdrawing from France.

I think that Mat Hastings must be deliberately not recognising what passed for Democracy at the time.

At the outbreak of WW1 most working men did not have a vote, if they did not own property, in the UK. All British men acquired this right in 1918, some women also got a vote (owned property aged +30).. It was not until 1928 when the qualification to vote was equalised with men. At the beginning of WW1, the monarchy still was very influential in the UK. No NHS existed in the UK or any other form pensions etc, for ordinary workers.

So how different was Germany (as that is where most attention seems to fall). The German men got to vote in 1867 (in the Northern Federation). By 1871 all of what we knew as Germany had the vote. Taking health services and pensions etc, Bismark started these in Germany from 1871. Yes the Kaiser had a lot of influence, although it appears not as unique for the period as it now seems when looked at in isolation.

I personally could not hazard a guess what the outcome to the protagonists would have been if Germany etc had won. Although the treaty of Versailles had many of the seeds that almost made a WW2 inevitable. The French never stopped pushing eastwards, the frequent demands for more reparations ensured that tensions remained and increased etc.

It is in the last area where lessons were learned after the end of WW2, where the USA reigned in the most excessive demands of some. It is probably the USA that has endeavoured to maintain world piece, that has been the most important aspect of our live times.

[David Davis]

Two points of information Erfolg.

1. You didn't have to own a house to have the vote in 1914. To qualify for a vote you had to be a man, aged 21 or older and either own, or be the tenant, of a house with a rateable value higher than a certain figure. This excluded the poor, but you are right when you imply that many of the British soldiers who fought the First World War were not entitled to vote because they were either too young, or too poor, or both.
2. Old Age Pensions, now called State Retirement Pensions, were introduced in 1911.

[Dave Hopkin]

Posted by Erfolg on 03/08/2017 10:06:59:

For me the question really is, should France have rushed to support a regime, that had engaged in State Sponsored Terrorism. I am making an assumption that not only was Austria aware that the assassination was directed by Serbia by the training and support of the assassins.

In my opinion, a balanced approach would have been to leave Serbia and Austria to sort out the issues between them. At that point i would have assumed that the Austrians would have won. The opportunity to apply pressure on the Austrians, could have lead to an agreement where the Austrians left Serbia etc for guarantees of future conduct. I know that this scenario is similar to the Prussians withdrawing from France.

I think that Mat Hastings must be deliberately not recognising what passed for Democracy at the time.

At the outbreak of WW1 most working men did not have a vote, if they did not own property, in the UK. All British men acquired this right in 1918, some women also got a vote (owned property aged +30).. It was not until 1928 when the qualification to vote was equalised with men. At the beginning of WW1, the monarchy still was very influential in the UK. No NHS existed in the UK or any other form pensions etc, for ordinary workers.

So how different was Germany (as that is where most attention seems to fall). The German men got to vote in 1867 (in the Northern Federation). By 1871 all of what we knew as Germany had the vote. Taking health services and pensions etc, Bismark started these in Germany from 1871. Yes the Kaiser had a lot of influence, although it appears not as unique for the period as it now seems when looked at in isolation.

I personally could not hazard a guess what the outcome to the protagonists would have been if Germany etc had won. Although the treaty of Versailles had many of the seeds that almost made a WW2 inevitable. The French never stopped pushing eastwards, the frequent demands for more reparations ensured that tensions remained and increased etc.

It is in the last area where lessons were learned after the end of WW2, where the USA reigned in the most excessive demands of some. It is probably the USA that has endeavoured to maintain world piece, that has been the most important aspect of our live times.

France did not support a "sponsor of state terror" at all -

• August 2nd Germany Invades Luxembourg
• 6am August 2nd German troops violate the French border at Joncherry
• August 3rd Germany declares war on France
• August 4th Germany invades Belgium
• August 4th Britain declares war on Germany

Male suffrage in the UK, the "Representation of the People Act" 1884 extended the vote to all males paying rent of over £10 per year or owning property valued at over £10 bring the voting population to 5.5 million

Whilst there was indeed universal suffrage in Germany from 1871 the value of the vote was far lower that the vote in the UK because the effective government in Germany was not under the control of the parliament but appointed by and responsible to the crown

[Erfolg]

David

What is missed out is that Russia supports Serbia. Then France declares it support for Russia. Many other bits of the puzzle are glossed over by both approaches.

In recent years, and some shared experiences at nation level, have engendered a view that State Sponsored Terrorism is not acceptable by a state, and any other state that supports such a regime. No doubt this view will change with time. Today the actions of Serbia would be roundly condemned by all, and any other states that choose to go to their support. The problem is that all the military pull out the plans that they have developed with time, for various circumstances. Even today, one of my cousins was employed as a mathematician, working on the probable outcomes of various plans and responses to them.

The fact that Germans all had a vote, does demonstrate that from a democratic perspective, that the qualification requirements were less onerous than the UK. Over 40% of males prior to 1918 did not qualify to vote. You have to spin the facts a long way, to argue that Germany was less democratic than the UK, at that time.

For me the tragedy of WW1 was that to many did not pause long enough to consider where they were probably heading. It seems very similar to the position of North Korea, a reckless leader, that is intent on provocation. Who could easily obtain a reaction that could have far reaching consequences. To many egos were at stake, in all countries.

What WW1, 2, Korean and many other wars should teach us, they rarely go completely as the error range would suggest and many lives will be ruined and the financial costs are significant.

[buster prop]

According to a book I have which describes the origins of WW1, it all began because of treaty obligations between countries and their allies. In 1914 Serbia was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire but Serbian nationalists wanted to Serbia to leave and have closer ties to Russia. That’s why they assassinated the nephew of the Austrian emperor who was visiting Sarajevo. In retaliation Austria threatened to invade Serbia, which was allied to Russia. The Russians warned the Austrians that they would invade them and Hungary if they attacked Serbia. Russia had an alliance with France who would have joined in against the Austrians who had an alliance with Germany. What had all this got to do with Britain? Well, we had a treaty with Belgium which dated back to 1837. We were bound to come to Belgium’s aid if their territory was violated, German troops would have entered Belgium in the event of a war between Austria/Germany and Russia/France. It was a debatable point and the Liberal leader, David Lloyd George was against it, knowing that we could be drawn into a war with Germany which was a strong military power. The Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey and PM Herbert Asquith thought that we must honour the 1837 treaty and also that Germany needed to be challenged. There had been a naval arms race going on between Britain and Germany since 1906 and their navy could threaten our sea routes to the Empire. Grey won the vote and Britain went to war. Historians are still debating whether it was worth 4 years of slaughter and 2 million casualties to uphold a point of honour. After the war Grey was blamed and became a recluse, re-living the events of 1914 until he died in 1933.

[Erfolg]

Buster that is the crux of how things were related, by treaty, that mutual defence had consequences that the concept was meant to avoid.

What is omitted, is the underlying relationships and previous events, that influenced greatly the responses of all those involved. The Austrians, asked Germany could they be relied on, if necessary. Just like Blair, to the USA they gave their support. The Russians (the Czar) gave their support to the Serbs. After that it was like a pack of dominoes, knocking each other over, just as intended when the structures were set up, virtually over a few days including a week end, where many could not be easily be contacted.

Who declared war on whom, became a technicality, it was more about who would strike first. Yet it does seem there was some reticence, in many quarters. But no one wanted to loose face and be seen as unreliable.

The trouble with history, the story and perspective depends where you are standing and most importantly is that history is written by the victors. Very little is totally true, in an absolute sense.

[Dave Hopkin]

Posted by Erfolg on 03/08/2017 20:24:14:

David

What is missed out is that Russia supports Serbia. Then France declares it support for Russia. Many other bits of the puzzle are glossed over by both approaches.

In recent years, and some shared experiences at nation level, have engendered a view that State Sponsored Terrorism is not acceptable by a state, and any other state that supports such a regime. No doubt this view will change with time. Today the actions of Serbia would be roundly condemned by all, and any other states that choose to go to their support. The problem is that all the military pull out the plans that they have developed with time, for various circumstances. Even today, one of my cousins was employed as a mathematician, working on the probable outcomes of various plans and responses to them.

The fact that Germans all had a vote, does demonstrate that from a democratic perspective, that the qualification requirements were less onerous than the UK. Over 40% of males prior to 1918 did not qualify to vote. You have to spin the facts a long way, to argue that Germany was less democratic than the UK, at that time.

For me the tragedy of WW1 was that to many did not pause long enough to consider where they were probably heading. It seems very similar to the position of North Korea, a reckless leader, that is intent on provocation. Who could easily obtain a reaction that could have far reaching consequences. To many egos were at stake, in all countries.

What WW1, 2, Korean and many other wars should teach us, they rarely go completely as the error range would suggest and many lives will be ruined and the financial costs are significant.

Firstly "State Sponsored Terror" - Serbia was split between moderates and nationalists who wanted a "greater serbia" at the expense of the (crumbling) Austro Hungarian Empire - The assignation was not a justifiable cause for war (a close analogy would have been the UK declaring war on the Republic of Ireland after the assignation of Lord Mountbatten) - even the Austrians knew the ultimatum sent to Serbia (after checking with Berlin for support) was unacceptably humiliating to Serbia and designed to be so to create opportunity for a "short war with Serbia" - Surprising Serbia agreed to almost all of Vienna's demand bar one (That Austria took over the on-going enquiry into the investigation) - Vienna rejected the offer, Britain made an offer to mediate between the two but the offer was ignored by Berlin and Vienna and ignored offers by Britain to mediate, The German Chancellor Bethmann Hollweg tried to restrain Austria but after the Kaisers comment "Halt in Belgrade" Austria declared war 2 days later - Russia announced mobilisation, Germany declares war on France and Russia.....

Whilst there was no formal treaty between Russia and Serbia however there was a very public and open bilateral agreement between the two states dating back to the 1870s,

As for suffrage it only has value if the body you are electing had any power, electing a parliament that can do nothing in terms of legislation is not a democracy, in Germany in 1914 the executive held all power and was appointed by the patronage of the Kaiser and was neither responsible to or controlled by any elected body - so to class German in 1914 as a democracy is highly misleading, when the executive was almost exclusively selected from a small group of military families who exerted extraordinary influence over the Kaiser to such an extent that it was effectively a military junta

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Alan Thorpe]

"You have to ask yourself what you would have done differently if you had been one of those Great War generals. Yes, sometimes generals made mistakes, General Gough for example repeatedly sent in the infantry behind an inadequate artillery barrage."

Hi David Davis,
Just in reply to your post.....some were grossly incompetent in their decisions and in some cases, had no consideration for their own soldiers' lives. Battle of Arras, an attack on Fampoux in May 1917, scheduled for the night of full moon in clear sky conditions.....generals ignored frontline soldiers concerns they would be in full view for enemy.....idiotic, callous decision that cost hundreds of lives in 1 night alone, including that of my relative.

So hundreds of guys went over the top and never seen alive again, as to not go over was seen as cowardice and punnishable by firing squad.

All recorded in the battalion diary.

In general's diary for same night...."men going over the top tonight. Heard a cuckoo today, wonder if nesting has started....."

Incredible. Couldnt care less about human cost of his decisions or duty of care to his men.

Lancashire Fusiliers at Arras 1917.

There were more battalions involved and all in futile exercise in pretty much broad daylight with the full moon.
 

 

Edited By Pete B - Moderator on 04/08/2017 20:27:55