Wars and ConflictsΜύ permalink
The Last Day of World War One
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Saturday, 6th November 2010
This disturbing documentary, sympathetically presented by Michael Palin, researched into the numbers of troops who were slain on the very last day of WWI, as the title suggests, but also how many officers sought fame and/or promotion in the last hours of the war by sending men to their doom.
The last Briton was killed an hour and a half from the armistice (noted poet Wilfred Owen died a week before), and an American- ironically of German descent- died in the very last 10 seconds of the war- the very last allied soldier to die in the conflict.
It is estimated that, on the last day of WWI alone, the allies lost over 10,000 men. This even excludes any who died of wounds etc incurred days before.
General Pershing was dismayed at the armistice and would have pushed the allies on to Berlin, he prophetically said that the Germans would otherwise say they were never beaten, and...
"We will have to do this all over again"! -
Message 2
Posted by Pete- Weatherman (U14670985) on Sunday, 7th November 2010
The trouble with Blood and Guts Generals like Pershing is, Its never there Blood or Guts. Surpresing the actions of thous responsable for so meany unwarented deaths was as bad as the act its self. There was so much wrong with the way WW1 was planed, executed and Commanded, That it makes the sacrefice of those who died seem a waste when it was far more an Heroic act.
The way that Shell shocked troops were treated proved that most (Not all ) high ranking officers had no idea what war was realy like. Glory was the most importent thing to them, not the reson for the war or even the wellfair of there men.. -
Message 3
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Sunday, 7th November 2010
The same applies to this day. Those who order troops into battle sit back and wait. If there is a victory, they will be standing on the steps of No 10 waving to the adoring crowds. If there is a defeat, it will be the Generals fault. Churchill was like that. More than once he ordered his generals to commit troops into places like Greece, against their advice. Then when it went wrong. Oh for the days such as Azincourt, when Kings led from the front.
-
Message 4
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Sunday, 7th November 2010
I agree, Pete, Patton was called 'Blood and Guts' - "his guts...our blood" was what US troops said.
Fred- Churchill was very much like that, he washed his hands of RAF C-in-C Bomber Command's Arthur 'Bomber' Harris after devastating raids (which he endorsed/ ordered) like Hamburg and Dresden!
He allowed (or supported?) Portal and Leigh-Mallory to oust Dowding and Park on the incredible victory of the Battle of Britain, as the nation's church bells rang..
For all his faults (blamed largely for the WWI Gallipoli campaign planning), Churchill was a modern "from the front" action man- even during WWII in his sixties, little known, is that he intended to go in with the troops on D-Day, and only the direct intervention of the King and General Eisenhower made him back down. -
Message 5
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Sunday, 7th November 2010
I should add that the sextagenarian Churchill intended to witness the D-Day landings from nearby warships, as far as he'd be allowed, not actually sprint up sandy, cratered and strafed beaches! But knowing him...
-
Message 6
Posted by MB (U177470) on Sunday, 7th November 2010
How did Churchill wash his hands of Harris? I think Harris commanded Bomber Command to the end of the war and then Atlee became Prime Minister. Churchill made Harris a Baronet when he became PM again - he had refused a peerage earlier.
-
Message 7
Posted by Stoggler (U14387762) on Monday, 8th November 2010
The trouble with Blood and Guts Generals like Pershing is, Its never there Blood or GutsΜύ
No, it's not normally their blood and guts on the line but they didn't enter the army as the rank of general but had to work their way up through the ranks. Pershing saw action in his younger days against Native Americans, and also in the Spanish-American War, and the Philppine-American War. He put his life on the line in those wars as much as those lads in the Great War.
Don't forget that many of the (British and French) First World War generals had sons or younger brothers in lower ranks who were fighting in the trenches - many lost members of their families in the war.
I've read here before that 16 allied generals were killed in the war - so they were hardly all sitting in chateaux miles behind the front lines sipping at their sherry. -
Message 8
Posted by Stoggler (U14387762) on Monday, 8th November 2010
I've read here before that 16 allied generals were killed in the war Μύ
Oh blimey, I totally under-represented the figure. According to this article on the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ, the number was 58 generals:
Here's the pertinent paragraphs:
Were Haig and his generals really "donkeys"? The evidence suggests not. Haig lost 58 of his fellow generals, killed or dying of wounds while leading from the front during the four years of war. Three died in the Somme in the first few days.
So the General Melchett image of Blackadder - of arrogant generals safe back at headquarters - is unfounded. They were brave, and their challenge was commanding an army of several million conscripts and volunteers, for which they had not been prepared. Μύ -
Message 9
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Monday, 8th November 2010
In Gordon Corrigan's book "Mud, Blood and Poppycock" (pub. 2003) he gives the following statistics:
<quote>Altogether four British lieutenant-generals, twelve major-generals and eighty-one brigadier-generals died or were killed between 1914 and 1918. A further 146 were wounded or taken prisoner.<quote>
He sources the figures from F.Davies' & G.Maddocks' "Bloody Red Tabs" (pub.1995).
He goes on to add:
<quote>Whatever else the generals were doing, they were not sitting in comfortable chateaux.</quote>
Similar, indeed greater, casualty figures can be found for officers of general staff rank in the French, Russian, German and Austrian armies. -
Message 10
Posted by Pete- Weatherman (U14670985) on Monday, 8th November 2010
I do not deny that most Generals and other officers earnt there rank. Its some of there attatueds to war that gets me. Glory above all else. The last soilder (A US Dough boy) in WW1 died one min befor the fighting ended. trying to take ground they could of walked in to a few hours later. but it was his CO who wanted that little bit more Glory that gave the order. That Officer DID get admonished for it but the trial got surprest to save his honour. Pershing had a simaler attatued when it came to war. He whanted to take the fight to Berlin and not give the Germans any choice but to surrender unconditionally.
Another aspect of the time is that in what uses to be a Cavalry based army (on both sides of the Atlantic) Officers did not understand the new Mec war, and that full on Death or Glory charges might of worked befor WW1 but new technology ment it was certain death in the trenches.
I also beleve ther was a certain amount of PETER Condition This is were some one is promoted to there level of incompedence. (No I did Not come up with it some other Peter did
) One position lower and thay are the best, raise them above that and the flounder. -
Message 11
Posted by Stoggler (U14387762) on Monday, 8th November 2010
I fear Pete that you are looking at the WWI generals from a very simplistic view point. Yes, there were officers (not just generals) who wanted some piece of glory on that last day of the war, and it is a terrible waste of life that happened on that day especially. But to say "glory above all else" dismisses the individual torments that many officers dealt with when going through that war (or any war for that matter). To think that they were just after glory shows that you have no experience of war and what it does to an individual's psychology - you do them a disservice.
Another aspect of the time is that in what uses to be a Cavalry based army (on both sides of the Atlantic) Officers did not understand the new Mec war, and that full on Death or Glory charges might of worked befor WW1 but new technology ment it was certain death in the trenches.
Μύ
Such cavalry charges were used in 1914 (before the digging in really took place) but both sides soon learnt that they were ineffective against the new mechanical weapons available to both sides, and consequently stopped such wholesale charges. The period of history we're discussing was one of great technological change, and as already mentioned it was the first major war that many of the combatants had fought in their lifetimes, especially the British (the French and Germans did have the experiences of the Franco-Prussian War to draw on). With only the experience of colonial wars to draw on, and the very rapid technological changes ongoing at the time, it is little wonder that the officers on both sides struggled to find tactics to overcome the defensive trench warfare.
Wars create environments that where innovation is the key, and The Great War was no different. Both sides invented new weapons, tried out new tactics, improved on existing technologies, all very rapidly and all in an attempt to outwit the enemy. But it takes a bit of time, experimentation and experience for humans to learn how best to get most out of new technologies - unfortunately with war, often that means learning on the field where men's lives are at risk.
It's very easy to dismiss all generals and their attitudes from 90 years away, but such generalisations are usually way off the mark. -
Message 12
Posted by Stoggler (U14387762) on Monday, 8th November 2010
Going back to cavalry, cavalry units were used or were planned to be used, including at the Somme if I remember correctly. You have to remember that horses were still the best way of moving soldiers quicky and with flexibility at that time - mechanised vehicles did not have the ability to deliver rapid attacks that cavalry could. The terrain often didn't make use of wheeled vehicles possible either. It's hardly any wonder that some generals hung onto the idea of using cavalry.
Tanks were invented during the war but they were so slow and could hardly deliver a quick counter attack, or make the most of the confusion in an enemy's ranks.
Horses were still intergral to military life in the early 20th century (civilian life too), with hundreds of thousands being drafted in to act as beasts of burden along the Western Front and Gallipolli.
If I remember correctly, there was at least one successful cavalry charge in the Middle East theatre, but that was not a theatre where heavy-mechanised trench warfare was being fought. -
Message 13
Posted by MB (U177470) on Monday, 8th November 2010
"Similar, indeed greater, casualty figures can be found for officers of general staff rank in the French, Russian, German and Austrian armies."
I think one problem is that many people seem to get all their own knowledge of WWI from schools concentrating on a few war poets and sources like "Oh what a lovely war". So a myth of incompetence of the leadership has built up over the years. -
Message 14
Posted by FulwellLib (U14560427) on Monday, 8th November 2010
Looking back with hindsight it is easy to become subjective and emotional about the casualties at the end of the war, but it should be remembered that until almost the last day the vast majority of people at all levels thought the war would go on until 1919. I would think most people thought the Allies were winning from August 1918 but the German army while being pushed back had not collapsed and the Allied forces were some distance away from German soil. Also November 11th marked the start of an armistice and hostilities could have resumed at any time.
On the subject of the generals one shouldnt forget the almost exponential increase in the size of the BEF between 1914-16 which meant that the general officers at all levels were by necessity learning on the job and many were promoted beyond their level of competence. Added to the changes in weapons, communications, logistics and doctrine its not realy suprising that mistakes were made, tragically costing the lives of many men. -
Message 15
Posted by Pete- Weatherman (U14670985) on Monday, 8th November 2010
I was generalising and baseing what I was saying on the facts put forward by the program, But I DO have some Experance. As a soldier of Six years back in the 70 I experienced beeing shoot at, bombed and involved in the odd riot, I served undder some Very good officers but even in NI there were still one or two who should of been (
How shall I say)
in frount of our guns, luck had it that these never stayed for long thanks to a good CO.
-
Message 16
Posted by Stoggler (U14387762) on Tuesday, 9th November 2010
But I DO have some Experance. As a soldier of Six years back in the 70 I experienced beeing shoot at, bombed and involved in the odd riot,Μύ
My apologies then Pete.
I served undder some Very good officers but even in NI there were still one or two who should of been (How shall I say) in frount of our guns, luck had it that these never stayed for long thanks to a good COΜύ
It's probably the same in any walk of life - good leaders and bad leaders (I've certainly had my fair share of rubbish managers!). Unfortunately, in the armed forces, the consequences of incompetence can lead to the worst outcome from an individual soldier's point of view
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Μύto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.