3rd Ypres

[djm]

Today is the 90th anniversary of the start of the third battle of Ypres (Battle of Passendale).

Possibly the most pointless waste of human life in modern history, claiming the lives of nearly 500,000 british and allied troops, and 250,000 german troops for a gain of 5 miles. The entire gained area was lost just weeks later in 3 days. Over one million shells were used per square mile and both sides used chemical weapons.

My Great Grandfather never made it to Ypres, he was gassed by our own troops in 1915 and invalided out. Two of his brothers were slaughtered there though. Field Marshall Hagues son (the second Lord Hague) was interviewed today bemoaning how his father has been villified, in response I would quote Siegfried Sasson:

"Good morning, good morning," the general said,
When we met him last week on our way to the line.
Now the soldiers he smiled at are most of 'em dead,
And we're cursing his staff for incompetent swine.
"He's a cheery old card," muttered Harry to Jack
As they slogged up to Arras with rifle and pack.

But he did for them both by his plan of attack.

[Nighthawk]

My grandfather fought in the 3rd Ypres, on the German side. He was with the artillery though, so he managed to survive.

[Ferrus]

Two of his brothers were slaughtered there though. Field Marshall Hagues son (the second Lord Hague) was interviewed today bemoaning how his father has been villified, in response I would quote
In truth though there is a strong historical argument to suggest that Hague was not the unmitigated blunderer that history wishes to portray him as. The First World War was a learning curve for the British (and other) armies, and the nature of the slaughter was more a result of the confluence of several defensive technologies comming to fruition before the arrival of offensive technologies (as seen in WW2) than the incompetence of the generals.

[Nighthawk]

I believe it is up to the generals to adapt in the face of technology. That is why they get paid the big bucks and were elevated to their exalted positions. Most of the generals in WW1 were unable to do that. There were some notable offensive techs that could have promised a break through ... among them the neophyte tanks ... but the generals used them in the incorrect manner. Von Hutier tactics, on the German side, proved to be the precursor to blitzkrieg tactics ... but they were also not given much credence by the high ranking staff and generals. The result was ... as mentioned above ... defensive stagnation with great loss of life.

[djm]

In truth though there is a strong historical argument to suggest that Hague was not the unmitigated blunderer that history wishes to portray him as. The First World War was a learning curve for the British (and other) armies, and the nature of the slaughter was more a result of the confluence of several defensive technologies comming to fruition before the arrival of offensive technologies (as seen in WW2) than the incompetence of the generals.

True he was not helped that we started the war with a poorly trained and badly kitted out army. However he showed a total disregard for human life in the terms of the numbers he was prepared to sacrifice to gain ground. Before the final offensive led by Canadian troops at 3rd Ypres the commander estimated (correctly) it would cost 16,000 troops and did not feel this was acceptable. Hague was used to loosing 100k troops at a time and was unconcened.

Whilst on the subject of British butchery of our own, Churchill did not cover himself with glory with his policy at Galipoli either.

[Ferrus]

among them the neophyte tanks
True, but the early tanks and airplanes had an unproven record - and given the critical nature of the conflict it would be reckless to use untried methods. And the early tanks were awfully unreliable. It was the machine gun, from the 1880's-1920's that proved to be the most important and decisive weapon, and it is essentially defensive. The 2 million dead Russians who were mowed down by the far superior German force largely died on account of this weapon.
Whilst on the subject of British butchery of our own, Churchill did not cover himself with glory with his policy at Galipoli either.
Perhaps - but Galipoli, which cost many Australian lives (and they have never let the 'poms' forget it) was ill-planned tactically but could have strategically been very successful had an Eastern attack worked. Churchill was not solely to blame - it was the admirals too who fucked it up on the day. It might have prevented the eventuall Russian capitulation, which very almost caused the Anglo-French army to collapse in 1918 as the Eastern troops surged in the Spring Offensive.

[Nighthawk]

True, but the early tanks and airplanes had an unproven record - and given the critical nature of the conflict it would be reckless to use untried methods. And the early tanks were awfully unreliable. It was the machine gun, from the 1880's-1920's that proved to be the most important and decisive weapon, and it is essentially defensive. The 2 million dead Russians who were mowed down by the far superior German force largely died on account of this weapon.


Agreed. I just hold the WW2 generals in higher regard ... for embracing and adapting to technology ... than their WW1 counterparts. Of course, it is easy for an armchair general like me to make such statements.

[Ferrus]

Agreed. I just hold the WW2 generals in higher regard ... for embracing and adapting to technology ... than their WW1 counterparts. Of course, it is easy for an armchair general like me to make such statements.
Yes: I suspect Hitler's dramatic invasion of France, and the early stages of his invasion of the USSR were the death-knell of traditionalism in military affairs, and ever since generals have come to appreciate fully the power of technology.

In many respects the situation of Britain in 1914-15 was similar to that of the USA in 1941-42, a small but well trained army, coupled with a large navy and economy suddenly having to divert most military resources into a new conscript army.

[booyalab]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SsIOWEWOfY

[mancroft]

Far, far from Wipers I long to be.
Where German snipers can't get at me.
Dark is my dugout, cold are my feet.
Waiting for Whizzbangs to send me to sleep.

[ApeTheDog]

It's ghastly shit. I've been to the Tyne Cott cemetary - you'll find thousands and thousands of those white crosses, all in sickly rows - each one a life snuffed out in the mud. And those are the bodies they managed to recover. It's impressive to see. Almost 12.000 graves.

Good for tourism, though.

[Nighthawk]

It's ghastly shit. I've been to the Tyne Cott cemetary - you'll find thousands and thousands of those white crosses, all in sickly rows - each one a life snuffed out in the mud. And those are the bodies they managed to recover. It's impressive to see. Almost 12.000 graves.

Good for tourism, though.

As a teenager, I visited the Verdun Ossuary (http://www.verdun-douaumont.com/en/intro.html). Very sobering. Since there were only bones left, and no whole bodies, they piled the bones by type in various crypts. A room full of skulls here, a room full of femurs there.

[ApeTheDog]

They're absolutely joyless places. In a way, it's actually insulting to those soldiers that they're stored away, under the ground - sometimes, yeah, with other peoples bones packed in together in the same space - with absolutely the same headstones over their carcasses.

It isn't bad enough that they had to walk in uniform, just like everybody else, then had to die without having had any choice in the matter - ordered to do so - like everybody else. And then they're buried, in uniform. Row upon row - all the same. Nothing more than a number and the standard issue tombstone. It's impossible to give each fallen person the credit and honor they deserve - but... well. The only RIGHT thing to do would have been not to have a damn war in the first place.

It's a good thing we've all learnt from this, right?

[Ferrus]

It's ghastly shit. I've been to the Tyne Cott cemetary - you'll find thousands and thousands of those white crosses, all in sickly rows - each one a life snuffed out in the mud. And those are the bodies they managed to recover. It's impressive to see. Almost 12.000 graves.

The only place I have been to was a cemetary in a small village somewhere in Flanders where my Great Grand Uncle was buried after he was killed in late 1918, I should imagine there are lots of these small war cemeteries dotted everywhere. Even for this tiny village however there were at least 300-400 bodies buried.

[ApeTheDog]

There are four that I know of, close in my vicinity, but I live near Ypres, so that's hardly representative. I think it's limited to regions around the (major) battlefields - less overhead of dragging the corpses around that way, I imagine. Lots of farmers, still, to this day, find unexploded bombs and/or helmets when plowing their fields, though. And when we just moved into this house, there were some things written in english on the attic - by soldiers who used to be stationed in my house. We built a fake wall over it, though.

Interesting, the cemetary I went to, the largest one, has been donated to England, so it's all english soil. I thought that was a nice gesture. And if I ever need to escape from the law, who knows... it might be worth hiding in it.

[Nighthawk]

I should imagine there are lots of these small war cemeteries dotted everywhere.

When I lived in southern Germany, there was a small burial plot in the middle of the woods close to my home. It had 4 small crosses with names, and 4 rusty German helmets ... one atop each grave. I considered it a miracle that nobody had looted the helmets.

[Ferrus]

When I lived in southern Germany, there was a small burial plot in the middle of the woods close to my home. It had 4 small crosses with names, and 4 rusty German helmets ... one atop each grave. I considered it a miracle that nobody had looted the helmets.
Are they well hidden? I can't imagine any such monument not being vanadlised here, unless Southern Germany is more... bucolic.

[C.J.Woolf]

It isn't bad enough that they had to walk in uniform, just like everybody else, then had to die without having had any choice in the matter - ordered to do so - like everybody else. And then they're buried, in uniform. Row upon row - all the same. Nothing more than a number and the standard issue tombstone. It's impossible to give each fallen person the credit and honor they deserve - but... well.
The army and the state aren't capable of doing that. They knew the soldiers only as uniform and interchangable, so that's how they bury them. It is up to those who knew the soldiers as individuals to honor them as such.


The only RIGHT thing to do would have been not to have a damn war in the first place.

It's a good thing we've all learnt from this, right?
I've come to think that aversion to war is learned strictly from personal experience; it cannot be learned secondhand. Those who have never experienced war see mostly the possible advantages to be won and grossly underestimate the costs -- and the possibility of defeat. (No aggressor starts a war thinking he will lose.) Many of the biggest wars, like the Great War of 1914-18, start after a long peace, after the combatants in the last great war are out of the way.

I believe that, all things considered, it is good for a society to fight a small war every generation, to keep the memories fresh and make it less likely it will start a big war.

[Ferrus]

The Great War's scale, and yet its equally large pointlessness was a consquence of changes in the modern world. It began as a dynastic contest, much as wars had been hitherto for 300 years but soon became a very modern war - with destruction that only the modern mechanised state is capable of. The American Civil War was, in reterospect, a foretaste - and the Boer war was to foreshadow the modern world's limited wars.

[Nighthawk]

Are they well hidden? I can't imagine any such monument not being vanadlised here, unless Southern Germany is more... bucolic.

They were out of the way, but not exactly well hidden. They would be vandalized pretty quickly here in the USA too.