The statement, “the Battle of the Somme was a complete failure,” is false for me. The main reason is that since there were some positives about the war, then it can’t really be a complete failure. Can it? I totally agree that the negatives completely outweigh the positives but if the question is whether this statement is true or false, then it is false. The Battle of the Somme was a very bloody war with significant numbers of deaths but the Battle of the Somme was not a complete
Source 15 (people’s judgements of Haig) tells us of historian Sir Llewellyn Woodward’s opinion of Haig’s strategies, “Our high command had not advanced beyond the tactics of the Stone Age. They could not think of any other form of warfare, except to throw into battle large numbers of men, month after month.” This quote could be biased as it is not written by a witness nor is it a fact, however, you can cross-reference this with the view from Field Marshall Montgomery who was a chief for Britain’s army “Haig was unimaginative and dull.” Some share the view that Haig is the Butcher of the Somme because of his over optimistic attack and his unwillingness to change his out-of-date, useless tactics which were clearly causing the deaths and suffering of a large group of men. An argument against Haig being the emotionless and unsympathetic ‘Butcher of the Somme’ is that he was acting as a professional and obedient soldier, who, like his men, was taking orders from a higher authority and was attempting to listen to military advice. A great deal of pressure was on Haig by both the French and British government, for the attack to be
o Pre-war doctrines were ill equipped to deal with modern technology; leadership was naïve, they were governed by out dated doctrines of cavalry v the rifle. o Naïve offensive military tactics, like soldiers going ‘over the top’, cost many lives. o The failure of the Schlieffen Plan halted German advance o Attempts to break the trench lines were unsuccessful and despite the creation of new weaponry and tactics, offensive tactics were halted only after the capture of a few km of territory. Verdun: 21st Feb – Dec 1916 o Falkenhayn hoped to break the French army by forcing it to defend Verdun. He knew that the French would defend Verdun because of its strategic position and its historical status as a great French fortress.
Furthermore, German politics suffered polarisation as the left and right became more extreme, divisions were caused by differing views over war aims and developing concern over the establishment of the ‘Silent Dictatorship’. The first world war definitely narrowed political divisions initially which can be shown through Burgfriede which was introduced on 4th August to symbolise the political truce between all parties, even the supposedly ’unpatriotic’ Social Democrat Party gave their support for what was presented as a defensive war. However this political unity did not last as the military was unable to deliver on the quick victory that they had promised, and as the Schlieffen Plan failed and the heavy losses in battles such as Verdunn, the unity of the parties began to fracture. Subsequently Falkenhayn failed to find alternative strategies to break the stalemate and as a result Falkenhayn was replaced with military hero Hindenburg. For this reason, one can argue how the First World War increased political divisions.
Battle of Verdun (War of Attrition) * Lasted from February 21, 1916 until December 18, 1916 * By 1915, the Western Front had become a stalemate as both sides engaged in trench warfare. * The German commander-in-chief General Erich von Falkenhayn considered England to be Germany’s most important enemy. That is why a target had to be found that would be so important to the French, that they would be willing to sacrifice their entire army. This army would 'bleed to death' could then easily be defeated. Geographically this had to be Verdun.
Was General Haig the “Butcher” or “hero” of the Somme? Does Haig Deserve his nickname "The Butcher of The Somme"? Field Marshall Haig was appointed commander of the army on 10th of December 1915, he was fifty-four at the time and he had had a very successful military career. Haig decided to attack the Germans at the river Somme in 1916, to attract German soldiers from the town of Verdun, where they were fighting the French and had almost broken through. But even though he was victorious there was a very high casualty figure.
Every good history student knows how the war began; but what caused trench warfare? Trench warfare was caused by the failure of the Schlieffen plan, which failed for many reasons. First the Belgians and the British Expeditionary Force (BEF),a group of almost 150,000 highly trained soldiers from Britain, put up a heavy resistance delaying the Germans. Then the Germans turned too early and instead of surrounding
The Americans were perhaps lacking in battle experience, but were fresh and described as belligerent – in other words they were spoiling for a fight. And in the opinion of many, this turned the momentum in favor of the Allies. From the point of view of Germany, America’s entrance into the war with 3,000,000 well equipped troops was a huge psychological blow as well. The battle took place over several days in July, 1918, with terrific losses for both sides with America alone suffering 12,000 casualties
Battle of the Somme The Battle of the Somme took place in 1916. But before the Canadians joined in the ill-fated operation they were engaged in local offensives, in the southern part of Ypres Salient, intended to keep the Germans occupied. At the battle of St. Eloi the second division received it's “baptism of fire” in a battlefield of water-filled mine craters and shell holes. The Canadians, wearing the new steel helmets which had just been introduced, suffered 1 373 casualties in thirteen days of confused attacks and counter-attacks over possession of six water-logged craters and the dominating land on which they sat. For the third division, the initiation to battle was even more devastation.
What was gained so quickly was slowly but steadily lost(History 7). As some say, the Crusades failed multiple times. There was over ten Crusades throughout the next couple of decades. The taking of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade had been just short of fatal to the Byzantine Empire, and it cast a blemish on the movement in the West, where there were critics of the whole concept of armed Crusades(History 7). For many, scholars were inclined to give the Crusades the credit for making Western Europe more cosmopolitan(History 7).