Talk:Battle of the Somme/Archive 2

criticized
in the third paragraph of the intro, criticized is spelled wrong


 * The word in question does not to appear to be spelt wrong when checking the paragraph in Word 2003; seems to a perfectly acceptable use of British English. Cheers--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Not done: As above. The rules around whether to use British English or American English are spelled out (no pun intended) at WP:ENGVAR. A major criteria is nationial ties to the subject. Using that criteria, British English would be appropriate for an article about a battle predating the US involvement in WWI. Celestra (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ~ize is the preferred form for "criticize" in British English. In recent years, publishers and newspapers have tended to move towards the ~ise form for all endings as it makes editing and proof-reading much easier. However, "Oxford English", which is used in Government publications, stipulates ~ize for some endings and ~ise for others (depending on the derivation of the word). (For example, not many people realise that "realize" is the preferred form!)


 * From Compact Oxford English Dictionary


 * criticize


 * (also criticise)


 * • verb 1 indicate the faults of in a disapproving way. 2 form and express a critical assessment of (a literary or artistic work).


 * Nunquam Dormio (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In regards to government publications apparently not their own website, a hit off the first page of a google search :p
 * 
 * However to be sensible for a moment it is still a perfectly acceptable usage of the "ise". There was actually an article around here somewhere, that i glanced over earlier when in work but for the love it cant find right now, that noted Cambridge (our other top uni) moves in the opposite direction of Oxford and is followed by the mass media, the public etc
 * Even our own wiktionary article states its fine: --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The proposal above was that "criticized" should be changed to "criticised". As above, there is nothing wrong with "criticized" in British English; in fact, it is the preferred form. The form "criticised" is more common these days, used by all newspapers & most publishers. There's only a problem if both forms are used in the same article. A stickler would argue that Wikipedia should have a written house style for British English that applies to all articles – so that we'd always use "realize" (or "realise"). However, Wikipedia has bigger problems to solve (such as continual vandalism by school kids) so I think a house style would be some way off. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 07:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Celestra means, of course, "criterion." "Criteria" is the plural. Hengistmate (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

A humane moment
I inherited a story about the Battle of the Somme from my grandparents.

On the first day of the Somme the Germans were so horrified by the slaughter that they offered a two hour cease fire for wounded men to collected by stretcher parties. Both my grandparents were adamant that after this all personal animosity went out of the war. As my grandfather, who fought at Vimy Ridge, put it.

"Fritz is a bloody good soldier"

Does anybody else have any information about this cease fire?AT Kunene (talk) 09:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Newfoundland
The article says: "This one day of fighting had snuffed out a major portion of an entire generation of Newfoundlanders." Is this POV? Newfoundland's population was about 250,000 at the time...is 500 dead really "a major portion of an entire generation"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.6.237 (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Tank Losses.
I am very surprised to see that Tank losses during the battle are given as 100.

However one defines a "loss" (destroyed, captured, abandoned, temporarily out of action, mechanical failure) losses cannot have amounted to 100. There were only 59 British Tanks in France in September 1916, and only 49 were sent into action on the 15th. Although some were temporarily disabled, and one fell briefly into German hands, all were recovered. In subsequent actions at Thiepval (Sept 25th & 26th), Beaumont-Hamel (Nov 16th), and several small, local actions, no losses occurred. No further Tank actions took place until April, 1917. Rather than 100, a figure that would more accurately reflect Tank losses during the battle is ten (all on Sept 15th), and most of those were later recovered and repaired. Hengistmate (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

german casualties AGAIN
The official German Army Medical history Heeres-Sanitätsinspektion im Reichskriegsministeriums, Sanitätsbericht über das deutsche Heer, (Deutsches Feld- und Besatzungsheer), im Weltkriege 1914-1918, Volume 3, Sec. 1, Berlin 1934 Lists the following figures for the entire western front from July-Nov 1916 179,359 Dead and missing; wounded 415,935. Total 595,294 This includes casualties in the Verdun battle and does not include those reported in hospital due to illness. Also please note well that some of the wounded will die later and be reclassed as died of wounds in the final total for the period 1914-18--Woogie10w (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The official UK reportStatistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire During the Great War 1914-1920, The War Office March 1922 gives the following figures for German casualties inflicted by British Empire forces from July-Oct 1916 on the Western Front Page 360- Killed 31,293; Wounded 127,152; POW/MIA 35,245. Total 193,690--Woogie10w (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

CAN SOMEONE CHANGE???? the casualties present in the box exceed the overall casualties of the western front for this priode of time, even with casualties of verdun. please remove this **** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.153.219 (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Official history for 1917 vol I questions the accuracy of 'Military Effort' by comparing it with the Medical History. OH 1917 I pp.557-558 has, 'As the Adjutant-General gave 104,862 for the whole Expeditionary Force in the month of April, it was somewhat startling to find that in an official statistical compilation entitled "Military Effort of the British Empire" the British casualties on the Western Front for this month were given as 120,070....The "Military Effort" total for the year is 817,790, that of the medical history 750,249, a difference of 67,541. It may therefore be taken that not only the Arras casualties, but also those of Messines, "Passchendaele", and Cambrai, are considerably exaggerated by the "Military Effort".Keith-264 (talk) 09:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The 1922 UK Military Statistics mentioned give German figures very similar to the initial German Reicharchiv figures for the British sector (32,338 KIA - as opposed to 49,510 KIA on the French sector - 36,288 missing, 131,332 wounded). The German KIA need to be roughly doubled to allow crudely for wounded who died and missing who never returned (Reichsarchiv 789,400 Western Front KIA, final figure more like 1.5m out of 2.1m German dead). Doubling KIA gives about 65,000 German deaths on the British sector, 100,000 on the French sector, total c165,000 which more or less checks out with the 179,359 German dead and missing in the revised Sanitätsbericht figures posted by Woogie10w. Some of the French sector dead would have been at Verdun, and some of each would have been "normal wastage" in quiet sectors, and some on the Somme (my guess about 30,000 as it's about half the British sector deaths - so about 100,000 German deaths on the Somme is a reasonable ballpark estimate, and German casualty estimates of 300,000-400,000 are within the bounds of numerical sanity).Paulturtle (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

what???? the german casualties are to high, change it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 12:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Rather unfortunate wording in the lead...
Good evening,

I approach this article with little foreknowledge of the battle beyond knowing that a huge number of British men lost their lives; like most British people I have heard of the battle and the infamy of the day rubs off. But I was a bit taken aback (well, I confess I let out a bitter laugh actually) when I read in the lead:

"'The conduct of the battle has been a source of historical controversy: senior officers such as General Sir Douglas Haig, the commander of the British Expeditionary Force, and Henry Rawlinson, the commander of Fourth Army, have been criticised for incurring very severe losses while failing to achieve their territorial objectives. Other historians have portrayed the Somme as a vital preliminary to the defeat of the German Army, and one which taught the British Army valuable tactical and operational lessons.'"

My emphasis. Now, reigning myself back a bit, I suppose - on reflection - that can be the case. As I say, I don't come to this with much knowledge. But it rather sends a chill up my spine. I know we're to be neutral, but is not this wording more than a bit uncomfortable?

To try and put my finger on it, I suppose that the source of the problem is that the sentence draws on another sentence as if to throw itself into contrast. The formulation of the section goes something like: "Some say it was bad, but others say it was good". It's the conceptual pairing of the catastrophic losses with its implied counterbalance in the concept of "operational lessons". The source of my gallows laugh was the immediate thought "yes; the lesson was 'don't do that again!'"

To be clear, because I'm sure there will be people reading this who have strong emotions about this topic, I am not at all saying there is anything funny about the Somme; I'm saying that the way we have described it brings about a jarring, surprising response that caused me to bluster in something like disbelief.

I'm not really comfortable changing the text myself, since I'm unfamiliar with the subject, so I just thought I'd mention it here and perhaps someone might want to take it on. --bodnotbod (talk) 22:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As the author of most of the lead, I disagree that the wording is unfortunate or uncomfortable. Institutions, like people, can learn lessons. Armies are institutions, and when at war an army's 'lessons' can involve great human suffering and the resulting 'benefit' can be difficult to quantify. I think the lead is apt, and reflects something of the present historiography. For instance, to quote from the synopsis of Sheffield (2003) The Somme, the battle '..was not an unmitigated catastrophe....the British underwent a bloody but steep learning curve. The Somme was a human tragedy, but an essential precondition to the Allied victory in 1918'. Reflecting on the lead however, we might anyway question to dichotomy as its presented between 'criticism' and 'lessons', as it's perfectly possible to criticise Rawlinson and Haig and still consider that the battle was instructive or even vital. --IxK85 (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think one has to look at the big picture of military nescessity, European military history and industrial warfare. As IxK85 points out, war like life, has a learning curve to it; the first four/five months of the war was for some the most bloodiest period and that was the "mobile warfare" stage. ~307,000 French dead, ~241,000 German dead (with caculations suggesting that up to 580,000 would have died had the same loss rate and type of war been waged over a year period); they dug-in to save lifes, then had to learn how to defeat a modern industrilised army in entrenched positions. Furthermore a "proper" great power war had not been fought since basically the Franco-Prussian War, most wars in the previous 60 years had been over in months and the only real fighting elsewhere had been colonial in nature. Just food for thought and in essense i agree with the lede (one has to be a little morbid about war tbh).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about a 'learning curve' since the requirements of firepower warfare are obvious. I think it is more of an 'equipment curve'. What you can see in narratives of the BoftheS are changes in technique, many of which depend on equipment which didn't really arrive in enough quantity until early 1917 (hence there being no point in publishing SS143 until then). If you look at the Transportation History and the appendices of OH 1916 I & II there were interruptions in the quantity and regularity of the delivery of stores like ammunition and that the road, rail and inland waterways on which supplies to the Somme front were sparse and were in poor condition after the winter. It's not a wonder that the battle was so destructive of the British army as much as that it could keep a battle going for that long over such poor communications with such questionable things as 18pdr ammunition which had a premature rate of one per thousand and gun shells with howitzer fuzes in them and yet do such damage to the Germans. 'In Through German Eyes' Duffy offers plenty of anecdotes of the improvements in British methods during the battle such as making creeping barrages the norm in attacks, using every method going to communicate, integrating air and ground operations and making big strides in creating the 'technological batlefield'. In 1916 the British army was damned if it did, damned if it didn't it seems to me. Nonetheless the BoftheS was part of the campaign decided on at Chantilly in 1915 which saw the beginning of the end of the German army and which left Falkenhayn's strategy to win the war in 1916 in tatters. How do we measure the relationship between the Somme, Verdun and the Brusilov Offensive when they were interdependent? I think we can say that the French revival at Verdun late in the year was made possible by the Anglo-French pressure on the Somme and that the demolition of half of the Austro-Hungarian army by Brusilov contributed to German overstretch. However inefficient the British were in the second half of 1916 it can't be denied that they were more efficient at the end and the German army was less efficient. I can't see how this can be called a defeat, a bloodbath yes and an exploitation of the possibilities of the equipment that made better methods feasible certainly but not a defeat.Keith-264 (talk) 11:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Learning Curve' is the usual turn of phrase for this kind of thing. And whilst it is arguable that the requirements of 'firepower warfare' are, indeed, obvious. Its also quite apparent that it took the British, French and Germans armies some time to grok them in the detail required to execute effective operations. Ultimately, the learning and equipment curves are inter-related; as is evidenced by the change in French and German Divisional structures to favour more and heavier firepower (in terms of small unit equipment, MGs and artillery), which was both a consequence of battlefield experience and the availability of the equipment.
 * Also, agree with the initial turn of phrase. Military institutions learn most of their lessons through blood. 59.100.140.28 (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The wording or content of the article isn't the problem, it is that an actual detailed understanding of how and why these battles turned out the way they did runs so contrary to the popular myth that they were unmitigated disasters. Bodnotbod's comments are at least polite and coherent, and deserving of the courteous reply which they received, which is more than can be said for some of the comments on this page.Paulturtle (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC) I prefer to avoid the term 'learning curve' as I believe that it's obsolete as well as being wrong and a cliche.Keith-264 (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not overly fond of the phrase either - it's naff, the "learning" wasn't a simple linear process (any real-life rule of thumb or algorithm is usually a simple approximation to a situation which is beyond human comprehension - the trick is to find rules of thumb which work, eg. X amount of shelling will suppress Y amount of enemy trenches, and out of umpteen possible options it's seldom as obvious as it seems with hindsight) and a lot of it wasn't "learning" but just assembling weight of artillery - and for a long time tried to avoid using it. However, rephrased as "the so-called learning curve" it's a useful shorthand when talking to people who aren't WW1 geeks - quicker than "contrary to popular myth, Haig wasn't an idiot who kept bashing away with "the same old tactics" because he was too stupid to see that tanks were the answer"Paulturtle (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Considering that the French chose the right methods by late 1915, tactics was aftermath. I suppose that the British army had to find out the hard way that the British army wasn't exceptional (apart from the money behind it) which may have required a couple of examples but as the French and then the British were rising to the offensive occasion the Germans were doing the same defensively. Learning can't have much of a curve when the defenders are doing a bit more than gloving up in the corner. Consider 3rd Ypres for an example. At Verdun in December, Arras in April and Messines Ridge in June the German elastic defence failed so a natural evolution of British methods was to organise advanced guards to accompany attacking infantry at Pilckem Ridge (another ridge) so as to be ready to press on if the Germans folded again. Perfectly reasonable, yet Gough gets damned for it because people treat the Red Line as the distance the infantry were to advance rather than the Green Line. It's explicit that the guards were there on the off chance and wouldn't go forward unless the local divisional commanders decided that it was 'on'. Clearly each side analysed its strategic predicament and decided on an operational concept accordingly. This is obviously much quicker than mobilising industrial resources and (for the British) designing the artillery etc needed for firepower warfare or making the industrial mobilisation work optimally; that takes time not curves or learning.Keith-264 (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Intro
Everyone mentions the British first day losses so I suggest we add some losses for the French and German armies on 'grosskampftage'. Opinions?Keith-264 (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not necessary. The British first day losses are important because of their psychological impact and their role in the (British/ex-Dominion) memory of the Somme. The French and Germans where used to large losses by this point of the war. Although, I suppose an argument for including the French figures could be made if used to contrast the French success on the first day.59.100.140.28 (talk) 13:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree, much of the comment about the first day for the British was ex post facto.Keith-264 (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Political comment in Britain? That opens up a whole new can of worms this page hasn't really touched. Comment by the French (Fayolle and Foch) I'd suggest building into a section contrasting the British failure and French success on the first day. But I'd argue that could be achieved better by expanding the woeful French section in First day on the Somme59.100.140.28 (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * At least, I'm assuming you disagreed with my suggestion that discussing the French and German losses on the first day of the some was unnecessary, not any of my other points. Your disagreement was a little ambiguous.59.100.140.28 (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ex post facto as in after 1928. The point is that in far too many sources the German army is conspicuous by its absence so droning on about the disaster for the British on 2/3 of their attack frontage needs to be balanced by reference to the German disaster on 1/3 of the British front and all of the French front. It's probably a dead end to contrast French success with British partial failure when the Germans made their main defensive effort in the British sector and underestimated the threat in the French zone. German success in the British centre and north pretty much guaranteed failure further south.Keith-264 (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with the overall point that the article has to avoid a British (and specifically Oh what a lovely war) point of view. I would prefer the lead to mention the impact the battle had on all of the participants; that would entail a mention of the particular effect on Britain, and in that context I think the figure for British losses on the first day still belongs in the lead. However we definitely want to avoid an article which says "The Battle of the Somme was a long, pointless bloody disaster for the British. Some historians say otherwise..." I hope this makes a litte sense... The Land (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think that in this article a British/Dominion POV is not out of place; compare the 2nd Marne page. Its of arguably comparable strategic importance as a turning point in WW1, but in terms of historical memory it isn't as important and as a result is nowhere near as developed as this page nor as visited. However, I do understand the Wiki:NPOV policy. So, I think the best solution is to either retain the current form and focus the NPOV effort on improving the sections dealing with French and German forces or to include short precis of the place of the battle in French and German understanding of WWI.
 * Essentially, the NPOV issue isn't lead; its the lack of rigour in examining French and German actions in the body of the article. 59.100.140.28 (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

"It's probably a dead end to contrast French success with British partial failure when the Germans made their main defensive effort in the British sector and underestimated the threat in the French zone. German success in the British centre and north pretty much guaranteed failure further south" In purely military terms, yes, although there was an element of the French being (to coin a phrase) "further up the learning curve" (also I thought there was more of an advantage of the Allies being on higher ground in the south, making artillery spotting more effective, whereas on VIII Corps sector the Germans had the height advantage). However, the politicians were quick to pick up on it, criticise it and embarrass Foch by publicly asking him to comment. Some writers (I forget who but it was in someone I read this year) accuse GHQ of pathetic point-scoring in pointing these things out whereas in fact they were just replying to political criticism. It was part of the unedifying process whereby LG and some other politicians formed the impression that Haig was a mumbling idiot ("a confused talker is usually a confused thinker" or whatever LG said) and Nivelle ("You back the MAN!") a genius. Paulturtle (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * True but the big French success was short-lived. The BEF took the record for a one-day advance at Arras the following April, suggesting that British inferiority was rapidly remedied (another reason for me to prefer the 'equipment curve' iterpretation). The French were reduced to grinding despite their better equipment, training and experience so this resembles most western front offensives where the most visible changes occurred in the first few days. I'm suspicious of Ll-G as I think he was fabricating a false alibi over the costs even as he tried to take credit for the victory of 1918.Keith-264 (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

1918 still lay in the future at this point but certainly looking for a reason to shorten Haig & Robertson's leashes and get the French (once the Italians had been clear that they were unwilling to step up to that plate) doing most of the fighting in the first half of 1917, and if they won the war so much the better. Carping about relatively inferior British performance on the Somme was partly genuine worry that losses could not be allowed to mount forever. It was also partly just Lloyd George's general power hunger - of which politicians are no more guilty than anybody else - and the desire of a strong personality whose time had come to impose his will and curtail the freedom which the generals had attained as a result of the Dardanelles fiasco and the slipping of power from Kitchener's and Asquith's fingers. Haig would never again have quite as free a hand as, new to the job, he had had in 1916.Paulturtle (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC) I'm surprised that you think politics doesn't attract megalomaniacs and gamblers! Much post war criticism of the BEF seems to me to stem from Ll-Gs hatchet job on Haig once he was safely dead.Keith-264 (talk) 07:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Politics can attract nutters but they tend not to get to the very top, and part of the fun of this period is that nobody knew the nature of the beast, and the politicians weren't sure what kind of war they wanted to fight, which opened up the door for some political soldiers. Armies also produce nutters (Nivelle) and the power-mad (Robertson). Although Haig is not guilty of the sillier calumnies which came to be directed at him (eg. that he was a callous upper-class twit, and sent his men walking into enemy machine guns because he was too stupid to develop tanks, etc), there certainly are criticisms that can be pointed at him, such as willingness to listen to exaggerated intelligence reports of German collapse, and willingness to push on with offensives which were grinding down the modest Allied lead as fast as he was grinding down the Germans, which is why politicians at the time lost confidence in him and few other than the late John Terraine would defend his reputation unequivocally. As for the postwar criticism, yes up to a point, but then LG's writings, along with those of Liddell Hart, fell on fertile soil because of public revulsion at the size of the blood price. Conversely the Final Despatch/Terraine view that it was all some great process of wearing-out culminating in the coup de grace of the Hundred Days, although nearer the truth than Lions-Led-By-Donkeys, never quite persuaded because a) it is rewriting history - the wearing out went on far longer than DH hoped and b) German combat deaths were only part of the reason why their morale collapsed in late 1918, making the Hundred Days possible (along with naval mutiny, blockade, internal unrest, US entry, desertion of lesser Central Powers, clear inevitability of Allied victory in the west - almost impossible to disentangle causation) and "only" about 35% of German Western Front deaths were incurred at British hands. I guess that makes me a "Post Revisionist"!Paulturtle (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

globalize
The article has a big imbalance on the coverage of the combatants and their operations. The German and French armies receive almost zero coverage and their units are not named while the Commonwealth forces are constantly named by their units and their commanders. The article basically gives the impression of a one sided battle, a battle fought only by the British commonwealth forces, and where the British attacked an abstract enemy without shape or form.

In many instances even British batallions operations are described shortly while the Germans forces who took part in the battle are not even described in the section: German preparation on the eve of battle (not even the big ones like the corps), limiting to a short summary of the German defenses. The only german unit named in the article is the 6th Bavarian Reserve Division because Hitler was in that unit. The French army is neglected in the same way even tough they made half the Allied army Andres rojas22 (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC) Do you have any sources on the French and German armies (in English)?Keith-264 (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection
I've requested semi-protection again as this article is a continual target for vandalism. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 07:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Strategic Effects
Some historians[who?] hold the Battle of the Somme damaged the German Army beyond repair.. This is essentially the core of Philpott's argument in Bloody Victory; although 'beyond repair' is probably drawing a long bow, perhaps rephrase to the more neutral: "The battle of the Somme placed unprecendented stresses on the German manpower reserves[cite Bloody Victory]], after which the German Army was never able..."

Also, the comment that German forces 'the German Army not only maintained its line unbroken throughout' is debatable. Its possible to argue, as Philpott does, that the German line was broken on 12 Sep by the French at Bouchavesnes (Philpott, London: Abacus Paperback, p. 345). This wasn't a breakthrough because it wasn't exploited, but he states that there was open countryside in front of the French troops. The second half of that sentence - 'but actually drew a few divisions away from the Western Front at the height of the offensive for use in its concurrent invasion of Romania' - is also debatable. The intent in this article is to suggest that the German High Command was able to defend on the Somme and still utilise divisions in the west strategic reserves.

Whereas Philpott argues that: ''Eleven German divisions did go from West to East during the second half of 1916 (they had to because of the crisis on the Eastern Front), but nine of them had been eviscerated on the Somme or at Verdun beforehand. Six relatively fresh division came the other way.'' (Philpott, London: Abacus edition, p. 447).59.100.140.28 (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The crisis for the Germans in August and September 1916 was unprecedented, they had to find reserves for the Somme, Verdun and southern Russia-Rumania and the Austro-Hungarians, Russia and Italy. Far from the despatch of troops to Russia demonstrating the ease with which the Germans held off the Entente on the Somme, it demonstrated strategic overstretch created by Joffre's Chantilly strategy. "...in addition to... [an] amount of heavy artillery, some technical troops, cavalry and unbrigaded formations such as Landsturm battalions, twenty complete divisions were dispatched from Germany or France to other theatres whilst the Battles of the Somme were in progress and six were sent from Russia to the Western Front. Of those divisions sent from West to East nine had sustained heavy losses on the Somme or at Verdun and nine were new formations constituted by "milking" regiments from existing divisions, incorporating Jaeger battalions, foming new regiments of recruits of the 1917 and 1918 classes and drawing upon returned sick and wounded. Other such divisions were constituted in Russia or formed for service on the Western Front, where there were actually more German divisions in November 1916 than there had been in July. The Somme had used up the strength of 95 1/2 divisions, 43 1/2 being employed twice and four, three times." OH 1916 II pp. 554-555.Keith-264 (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Philpott's effort has its merits but I wouldn't rely on it too much because it is as one-eyed as most other anglophone writing on the Somme; Prior and Wilson are nearly as bad. As for 'breakthroughs' I don't know of any military operation in the Great War where one was achieved. Armies advanced and armies retreated but they always managed to maintain a defence of sorts, denying the advancing army freedom of manoeuvre because it was so much easier to retreat.


 * "Beneath the enormous pressure which now rests on us we have no superfluity of strength. Every removal in one direction leads eventually to dangerous weakness in another place which may lead to our destruction if even the least adjustment in the enemy's dispositions is made". (Falkenhayn to Bethmann-Hollweg 21st August 1916). "...the German army had been fought to a standstill and was utterly worn out". (Ludendorff i., p. 304.). "We must save the men from a second Somme battle." ( Hindenburg in G.O.A. xi., p. 470.)." All in OH 1916 II p. 555.Keith-264 (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with all your points. Can you edit those sections to reflect our consensus. IE the 'some historians' passage to reflect Philpot being one of those historians and the comment about drawing troops away not to imply it was because of German defensive strength on the Somme.

Although, I do think you missed my point about a break in the line. A break in the line is not necessarily a breakthrough; Philpott argues the French broke into the third defensive line in the South on 12 Sep with no defensive lines in front of them. In the absence of evidence suggesting this assertion is wrong, I find it impossible to support the statement 'the German army... maintained its line throughout'.

I personally find a synthesis of Prior and Wilson's work (essentially agreeing with a large part of their operational analysis) with Philpotts (his strategic context) more persuasive. But I'm hoping to grab a copy of Jack Sheldon's work on the German Army on the Somme. Any good references in English that focus on the French battles?59.100.140.28 (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There's 'Pyrrhic Victory: French Strategy and Operations in the Great War' by Robert A. Doughty and 'German Strategy and the Path to Verdun: Erich von Falkenhayn and the Development of Attrition, 1870-1916' by Robert T. Foley. I was impressed by P&W at first glance but had second thoughts due to some very good work done on the genesis of the British part of the Somme offensive here http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?s=2854c1cea756b90c1688af80bcfe3303&showtopic=69261&st=0 which is mostly about 3rd Ypres but has much of interest about the Somme and a refutation of much of P&Ws views about artillery priorities http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=152691 there's more here. Duffy 'Through German Eyes' is quite good although like Sheldon it is more of a compilation than an analysis.


 * As far as breaks in the line are concerned it's the ability to make use of them which I question. There were plenty of occasions where the attacking side didn't have physical opposition against them in an area but were not able to exploit it because they were never big enough or lasted long enough. Creating the condiions for a break in negated the possibility for a break out. Foley is very good on Falkenhayn's 'pessimistic' view of the prospects of offensive operations on the Western Front.


 * I'm not ready to make big changes to the text as I'm still far from making my mind up. I've got OH1916I and the appendix volumes to finish (there is much of interest on the question of artillery use in the appendix volume for OH1916I) and am waiting on 'Landrecies to Cambrai: Case Studies of German Offensive and Defensive Operations on the Western Front 1914-17' (Helion Studies in Military History No 3) by Duncan Rogers which he's been promising since April....Keith-264 (talk) 09:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The ability to make use of breaks in the line is irrelevent. The statement is that the line was never broken: Philpott argues it was. If the statement was that a breakthrough was never achieved then I would agree: however, this is not what is argued in the current text.

And I don't understand your reticence to make the (relatively minor) changes now. They're supported by the references at hand. IF future publications refute them, you can always edit again to reflect the most recent analysis. But, in any event, I doubt that any new work will dispute the facts that:

a) the Somme put significant pressure on the German manpower reserves, (this is already IN this section: I just suggested you change the tone of the sentence to a more neutral one and cite Philpott as a reference. Despite your issues with Philpott {with which I - to an extent - agree} he is still a respected source who can serve as a reference for 'Some historians').

b) the reason the Germans were able to transfer divisions East wasn't because of the strengh of their defence, but rather because they needed those troops more in the East and they simply didn't have enough troops anyywhere,

c) that the German line was broken on the Somme, but the Allies where unable to achieve a breakthrough. As per above, these three points are what I'd like incorporated into the text of the Strategic Effects section, and I don't forsee them changing whatever histories are published. (The intrepretation of how these where achieved, and whether or not Haig and Rawlinson could have achieved them better on the other hand...)

I'd make these changes now, except for Semi-protected status and a forgotten password.59.100.140.28 (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not reticent about what I want, I'm reticent about doing what you want; I'll be ready when I'm ready. As for breaking lines, there is the pedantic point about whether a gap ever existed and whether such a gap was ever practicable. You must have noticed that when there weren't any troops to contest a further advance the attackers couldn't go further anyway. In the Great War, 'breakthrough' is a red herring. What have you made of the analysis in the GWF references?Keith-264 (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not certain about the centrality you give to those forum discussions, they don't really change the fundamentals. Yes bite and hold tactics where costly, but insufficient attillery preperation was more costly. Given sufficient artillery (ie in 1918 when compared to the quality of infantry opposed to the Allies) it was possible to both achieve depth and quantity of artillery preperation. On the Somme the argument for Depth over Quantity often resulted in the failure to achieve even the initial object of the assault. This IIRC (its been a while since I read it) is P&Ws main criticism of Haig and Rawlinson. Moreover, (consider Philpotts argument) despite the cost to the attacking forces, both offensives (the Somme and 3rd Ypres) achieved their strategic intent. Correct me if I'm mis-intrepreting anything, I've only really had a chance to skim the forum.

WRT the break in the line. I agree whole-heartedly with your point about the 'breakthrough' read herring, and that the attackers where unable to exploit. Perhaps it is better (avoiding the red herring) not to include the point that the Germans maintatined their line (to whatever degree) as it is largely irrelevent to the strategic effects of the battle.

Also, apologies for pushing you on the edits. I don't foresee myself staying committited to this page over the long term (I'm an infrequent Wiki editor, previously User:Inane Imp) so I'd like to see change now. But realistically, so long as you consider my points in your eventual edits I'd be satisfied.

Finally, I've edited the formatting of our discussion slightly for better scansion (all your stuff is tabbed in once, mine is left aligned).59.100.140.28 (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "I'm not certain about the centrality you give to those forum discussions, they don't really change the fundamentals." Read Robert Dunlop's comments, he's one of the most well informed students of the Somme and 3rd Ypres alive. His point about P&Ws emphasis on faulty artillery arrangements is that the British artillery wasn't good enough in mid-1916 so concentrating the artillery on the German front position would have only multiplied the number of guns firing on it inaccurately. The poor weather during the bombardment also did far more to hamper the artillery than ambition. Notice that in the south the British were as successful as the French.Keith-264 (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have un-semi-protected the article so you can edit away, 59.100! The Land (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've made my edits and moved continuing discussion of the references to User talk:Keith-264. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.140.28 (talk) 01:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

"Indecisive;


 * German Army withdraws 40 miles (64 km) to the Hindenburg Line in February–March 1917[1]
 * Tactical and strategic effects favourable to Allies[2][3][4]"

Haig, after continously slowing down the pace of the offensive, finally broke up the battle by November 1916, whilst the german withdrew to the Hindenburg Line in February-March 1917 only. Hence the withdrawal occured roughly three months after Somme had finally ended, and the motive which finally made the german high command take back the troops was not (or at least not directly) related to the battle itself. Arguing the way the author does seems to be biased at least, and raises the idea if pherhaps he attempted to turn a bungled battle into a would-be sucess by mingling it with strategical operations which actually occured - in terms of warfare - a good deal of time after the battle itself ended to come to an "indecisive" result. Much the same way, it is ridicolous to call a gain of some squarekilometers of devastated land, achieved by the sacrifice of more than 400,000 allied soldiers killed in a useless slaughter a "tactical and strategic effect favourable to the Allies" - besides, to what substantial advantage for the Allies did this battle lead ? Untill the end of the war, Somme changed nothing about its outcome. It was the dispatchment of fresh US troops to Europe which saved the cause of the "Entente" - by the end of 1916, Britain and France were "dead men walking", last but not least because of the desastrous outcome of the Somme battle. What the author states rather is wishful thinking and the beautification of a military catastrophe - Somme was a blatant allied defeat, as was Stalingrad for the Germans 26 years later.(v.Mudra,02.07.2011 23:09CET). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.20.56.59 (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The battle began again in January 1917 (when the cold froze the ground) on the 5th and 4th army fronts. The Germans began retreating to the Hindenburg Line ahead of schedule, moved faster and lost outlying fortified villages intended to delay the Entente very quickly. Not all of the H Line was finished. The Somme, Verdun and Brusilov stretched the German army beyond recovery. The retreat of 1917 wasn't solely due to the Somme but the 'paltry' Anglo-French gains made the lines either side untenable. Falkenhayn's strategy to win the war in 1916 was in tatters. This isn't a victory.Keith-264 (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Plenty of good books are now available in English telling the story of WW1 from the German side (Foley, Passingham, Duffy, Sheldon, Asprey, Holger Herwig). They do not support the idea that these battles were "defeats" for the Allies, any more than the costly Wilderness Campaign of 1864 was a "defeat" for Ulysses Grant.Paulturtle (talk) 13:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not enough operational analysis for me, though Foley has a pretty good try.Keith-264 (talk) 23:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sheldon in The German Army at Cambrai, pp. 1-6, has a succinct section on the German building of and retreat to the Hindenburg Line which makes no bones about the tactical situation created by the (costly) Allied success on the Somme in 1916 being the reason for the decision to abandon the Somme area.Keith-264 (talk) 09:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Losses

 * "The average casualties per division (consisting of circa 10,000 soldiers) on the British sector up until 19 November was 8,026—6,329 for the four Canadian divisions, 7,408 for the New Zealand Division, 8,133 for the 43 British divisions and 8,960 for the three Australian divisions."

I notice that the 'division' is still 10,000 instead of about 18,000* men and that the loss figures have no citation. Comments?Keith-264 (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitchener%27s_Army#Divisional_structure_in_1915 gives 19,614.Keith-264 (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Keith-264 (talk) 09:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Notable deaths, surnames N-Z
It's curious that nobody with a surname beginning with a letter from the second half of the alphabet is listed in the notable deaths section. Perhaps this section is incomplete? NotFromUtrecht (talk) 10:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Only UK Opinion?
I totally disagree with the British bias banner. The article is very informative and well written. It contains references to Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders, americans, russians, italians and french. Therefore it is not bias. It has an engrossing part on German view of the Somme. Yet another example of another illiterate, banner happy "editor". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.68.6.12 (talk) 06:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC) It does seem skewed towards the UK.Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

British Bias banner is inappropriate - this was a British and French vs. German battle, and desiring a "worldwide view" is politically correct and entirely divorced from reality. Also, many German records were lost in WW2 and the British perspective is thus the only one that survives in such exquisite detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.128.31.147 (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Intelligence influence on British planning


You might find the chapter pp. 157-181 interesting on the supposed difference between Rawlinson and Haig. This as well,

General Rawlinson's formal Fourth Army Operation Order, dated 14th June, 1916:

"1. The Fourth Army will take part in a general offensive with a view to breaking up the enemy's defensive system, and of exploiting to the full all opportunities opened up for defeating his forces within reach.

2. The Third, First and Second Armies are undertaking offensive operations at various points along their fronts in conformity with the attack of the Fourth Army.

The objectives of the Third Army will include an attack on Gommecourt, which will be simultaneous with the attack of the Fourth Army.

3. The French will assume the offensive on both banks of the Somme...

4. The three successive tasks of the Fourth Army are:-

i) To capture the enemy's defenses on the line Montauban - Pozieres - Serre, forming a strong defensive flank on the Grandcourt - Serre ridge. ii) To extend the defensive flank from Grandcourt to Martinpuich (3 miles north of Montauban), and, at the same time, advance our line eastward to the line Montauban - Martinpuich. iii) To attack eastward from the line Montauban - Martinpuich, and then secure the Bazentin le Grand - Ginchy plateau.

The operations of the Fourth Army will be divided into phases as outlined above.

5. The first day's operations will include the capture and consolidation of Montauban, Contalmaison, Pozieres, and Serre.

As soon as this line has been gained and consolidated, preparations will immediately be undertaken to commence the second phase of operations."

Keith-264 (talk) 09:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead vs infobox
Hello all, a note about the lead. Firstly, the lead currently refers to Britain, Newfoundland, France and Germany as participants, while the infobox lists nine belligerents. Secondly, the infobox gives the overall result as 'indecisive' but then lists two results that suggest that the battle rendered the battlefield untenable for the Germans (prompting the withdrawal as an economy measure) and had a positive strategic effect for the Allies. By contrast the final paragraph of the lead portrays the battle as an Allied failure (at tactical/operational level) when compared to its original objectives. I suggest that the lead be altered slightly to reflect the infobox, which I think is more accurate. --IxK85 (talk) 08:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems that academic opinion has moved towards calling it a German defeat. Since they began the Siegfried line in September 1916 it appears that the Germans agreed. As usual the difference between a win-lose model and a 'cumulative effect model' adds to confusion. That the Germans had no choice but to adopt a defensive strategy on the Western front in 1917 seems pretty conclusive. On a personal note, I thnk it's anachronistic to refer to the dominions as countries, I prefer 'British empire' for the lot.Keith-264 (talk) 12:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've made some changes - please adjust as appropriate. Have removed the detail about Newfoundland, as it seemed a bit much for the introduction, and have tried to make clear that the battle failed to meet its original objectives, but that there was a German withdrawal shortly after. --IxK85 (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Lacks a Neutral Point of View
"It is accurate to observe that many British soldiers who were killed on the Somme lacked experience, but unwise to conclude, as some historians may have done, that their loss was of little military significance." This is just one of the many examples of opinion that riddle this article. This article seems determined to argue that the Battle of the Somme (seen as a disaster for decades afterwards) was, in fact, a strategic military victory for the Allies.Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 02:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Lack of French and German sources in English is still a serious problem for English monoglots, hence much of the Wikipaedia material on the Great War is Anglocentric. Things have improved somewhat in the last 25 years so; The German Army on the Somme 1914-1916 and The German Army at Cambrai by Jack Sheldon are worth a look for what it was like on the Somme for the Germans and what prompted them to withdraw from the Somme front in early 1917. Bloody Victory: The Sacrifice on the Somme and the Making of the Twentieth Century by William Philpott is also helpful, although bloated and with poor prose. The Other Side of the Wire Volume 2: The Battle of the Somme. With the German XIV Reserve Corps, 1 July 1916 by Ralph J. Whitehead looks good (volume I was well received) and Scorched Earth: The Germans on the Somme 1914-18 by Irina Renz, Gerd Krumeich and Gerhard Hirschfeld might say something interesting. Historiographically, the Somme was seen as a hard fought victory aganst a canny and courageous opponent at the time and until the 1930s-ish swing of the revisionist pendulum. In the last few years the mud, blood and poetry view has given way to a more nuanced version of the original orthodoxy and the revisionist version has retreated back into the English literature faculty and publishers' pot-boilers.Keith-264 (talk) 07:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you look here Ludo has a few things to say too http://archive.org/details/ludendorffsowns02ludegoog

Keith-264 (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC) Mr Howard would do well to remember that it is not the winner of a battle who shortens his line and abandons the territory he was trying to hold, whilst laying waste to and booby-trapping everything as he goes; which is what the Germans did in early 1917. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.128.31.147 (talk) 11:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Was this page vandalized?
On the leader paragraph there was a reference to the battle being between the smurfs and the teletubbies.

I didn't go into the article any further to see what else was changed. As it's my first time reading it and I'm not a historian, I wouldn't be able to spot any more subtle changes. I just wanted to alert the original authors about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.0.110 (talk) 05:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion
Added some sources and altered view of BEF training from well- to patchily-trained and added a citation.Keith-264 (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Found a citation for the request and altered wording, to put a wiki writer's judgement into an authorial paraphrase.Keith-264 (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Sub-pages
I've been browsing the Main Battle and Other Engagements pages and wonder if they don't encourage duplication? Since the red names haven't changed for quite some time, would it help to amalgamate them and add a section to the Main Battles pages on Subsequent Operations?Keith-264 (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Strategic differences between Haig and Rawlinson
Rawlinson anticipated an advance in the form of "bites" into the German defences.[17] This "bite and hold" method was based upon his experience, as in the Second Battle of Ypres where the Germans used 2,000 yards (1,800 m) worth of solid defence in the face of fire to achieve success.
 * This sentence doesn't make sense, Second Ypres was a German offensive.Keith-264 (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

German defensive preparations
Added detail from Foley & Wynne on German strategy in 1916, the place of the Somme in it and the type of defences built since 1914.Keith-264 (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Battle of the Ancre
The Battle of the Ancre page has been expanded on the lines of those battle pages linked to the 3rd Battle of Ypres, a copy edit and opinion would be welcome. Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Headings
Simplified some since they repeated the text. There is a lot of valuable information about the battle on the page but much of it seems to duplicate writing on the battle pages, where there is more room for tactial minutiae. The page also seems vague on strategy and operations (as does a lot of English writing on the subject). Any thoughts? Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 10:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Had a bash at the Final Phase section, pruned detail duplicated in the linked pages and added citations as per banner. OK?Keith-264 (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Prisoners
The 56th Division history and Haig's Despatches claim 38,000 prisoners taken by the British armies.Keith-264 (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Notable deaths
It seems funny that the only notable deaths occurred on the winning side. I guess the victors write the history and this is English Wikipedia, after all.

Still, I hope Wikipedians will note the inequity.

And since this is English Wikipedia, I am not sure how reasonable it is to expect non-paid researchers to go out and find a comparable list of German footballers and poets who might have perished in this senseless carnage. But it seems to me that if, almost 100 years later, we are going to have this kind of "notable deaths" list, it should include the Germans as well, and if we can't find a single notable German who died at the Somme, then perhaps this list should be abandoned. Otherwise, the implications of not including the Germans are rather grim. 116.55.65.9 (talk) 10:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Aren't all deaths equally notable? Lists like this smack of elitism.Keith-264 (talk) 12:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In my view that list can be safely deleted in its entirety - I don't think it adds anything useful to the article. The individuals might be better named, if anywhere, on pages for other parts of the battle. --IxK85 (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't expend any effort on it either way but if other people want it, I'll humour them like I do with VC sectionsKeith-264 (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Casualties
We really need to clear up casualties; Theres no information on the number of deaths, and we don't have anything on the causes of these deaths, such as gas attacks, artillery bombardment, or small arms fire. If we could also rule out any inconsistencies over how many were casualties, that would be great too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.76.38 (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Moral & Political Issues Need to be Addressed
This article is deficient in that it seems to completely avoid the moral, political and psychological impact on the public of such a catastrophic and unprecedented battle, instead focusing on a narrow analysis of whose armies emerged with an advantage. The reality of it was that Somme and the "Great War" generally represented a horror unprecedented in human history and was the Armageddon of the modern world as it had previously existed. It was in this context that revolutionary movements emerged onto the scene, first in Russia and then elsewhere, including mutinies in the armies in the field.

It was exactly this glib mentality that became further entrenched later in the 20th Century where mass killing and human extermination was analyzed in "scientific" terms of comparative efficiency that were completely oblivious to the moral issues implicated. In relation to the Great War, this outlook embodied extreme cretinism and moral bankruptcy as there was no substantial issue or controversy between the powers that gave cause for such slaughter in a conflict that was in essence a typical 18th Century struggle of the big powers-most of whom on both sides were imperial parliamentary democracies-jockeying for position, but armed with 20th Century technology resulting in an unprecedented disaster for humanity.Tom Cod (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Horror certainly but not unprecedented - consider the Euro impact on the Americas, Asia and Africa. No-one in England wrote poetry of dispair over the dead of Omdurman or the selling-out of South Africans to the Boer in 1910 did they? The moral, political and psychological etc lies in the return to Europe of the practices of colonial rule which had been inflicted on non-Euros since the C15th. I would have thought that there were quite a lot of non-Euros thinking about poetic justice when their oppressors imploded. If you want to add a meditation about morals I won't obstruct you but you may find it easier to link this page to other articles which delve into morals directly.Keith-264 (talk) 08:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

A German view of casualties
Taken from German Wikipaedia and Google Translate (I assume "liked" = killed....)

The losses of the British Expeditionary Force during the period 01/07/1916 to 11/30/1916 are the work of the War Office [7] stated as follows:

Liked: 5,270 officers, 74,506 teams, total 79,776 died of wounds: 1,430 officers, 25,133 teams, total 26,563 died for other reasons: 151 officers, 2,234 teams, 2,385 total Wounded: 14,788 officers, 328 643 teams total 343 431 Trapped: 370 officers, 5,558 teams, 5,928 or sum: 6,411 prisoners [8] Missing: 1,071 officers, 39,900 teams, total 40,971

Thus, the total losses of the British period will be 498 054. Of which fell on the Canadian contingent 29,414 losses to the Australian contingent 34,489 loss on the neusseländische contingent 9,600 loss on the Newfoundland contingent 1,046 loss on the South African contingent 4,239 losses for the Indian contingent 162 losses and the Royal Naval Division 2879 losses.

The German losses are stated in the medical report of the German Army [9] as follows: At the battle were in the period from 06.24.1916 to 26.11.1916, the German 2 Army and from 19/7/1916 the newly established 1 Involved army. A total of 103 different divisions were used in the two armies. The actual average strength of 2 364 524 man army was that the first 385 755 man army


 * Ill: 314 522, of which 3,053 gas Sick
 * Wounded: 273 132
 * Liked: 57,982 (including 1,662 officers, 5,420 sergeants, 50,900 teams)
 * Missing: 85,683 (including 1,430 officers, 5,952 sergeants, 78,301 teams)
 * died of wounds at the troops: 2,980
 * died of wounds in the hospitals of the respective Army: 10,960
 * of wounds in the hospitals of the army of occupation or in the home: not specified. This number can also be set at about 7,000, there  *came two wounded died in the army in the field a wounded soldier who died in the course of the war in the other hospitals.
 * Suicides: 22

The total German losses in the Somme battle were thus at 335 688 for the second Army and 395 636 for the first Army, at 731 324, of which about 416 802 bloody losses. British troops participated in the 2nd Half year 1916 40.207 German soldiers, including 832 officers captured on the Western Front. [10] Most of it is probably due to the Somme battlefield. So that about 125,000 German soldiers fell in battle or died of wounds later.

The medical report leads to losses on Tagzehnten. In the period 21.06.-06.30.1916 (the British bombardment began on 24.6.1916) had the second Army bloody losses 6,960: 4,482 wounded, 1,189 dead and 1,289 missing. The casualty figures rose from 01.07 Tagzehnt 10/07/1916 by the British attack since 01/07/1916 enormously: 20,875 wounded, 5,786 dead and 18,438 missing, 45,099 together bloody losses. The comparison of the Tagzehnte shows that the trenches provided a relatively good protection against enemy fire, but that the attack also attacked led to high losses [11].Keith-264 (talk) 11:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Point Of View (literally)
Ok, this is the English wikipedia, but the article is written from a mostly British point of view. What about the German, and even more so, the French point of view, sources, and so on? It is not a bias in the strict sense, but it cripples the article. -- Zz (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There's some stuff from German sources early on in the page but you'll have to look at the later articles in the series for that.Keith-264 (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As you say, there is (a) little. The article is in dire need of expansion of the non-British experience and actions. -- Zz (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * People have done what they can with the souces they have. I have a few sources but I'm looking at the 3rd Battle of Ypres since I got more sources on that. I hope to work my way backwards from the final battle of the Somme battles which I expanded a while ago. I'll have a go at Guillemont and Ginchy next. That'll have to wait as I'm working on a page covering January-March 1917. There isn't that much from the German point of view and the French are almost invisible in anglophone writing. Battle of the Ancre Battle of the Ancre Heights Battle of Thiepval Ridge and Battle of Morval may be more to your taste. Do you have anything to offer? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The French are almost invisible in Anglophone writing - don't English language historians work with French sources or are French historians not being translated to English? -- Zz (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hardly any translation. There's Doughty and Phillpott (I used Phill for the French sections I added to the later pages in the series.) Have a look at the Verdun and Aisne pages and you'll see what I mean.Keith-264 (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Umm, more articles in need of templates. -- Zz (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No-one will take much notice of us moaning about it, certainly not a publisher.;O) At the moment I'm trawling through BEF divisional histories, gleaning bits and bobs to fill gaps - the 23rd Div hist has some interesting titbits on German air operations for Menin Road Ridge and the 7th DIv history mentions a lot of "straggling" during 2nd Passchendaele part I.Keith-264 (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I know. And my comments are not directed against those who have put a lot of effort into working out the British side of things. Yet, the article is unbalanced and this should be marked. -- Zz (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The point made by Zz is quite true, just an example, first paragraph about the state of the armies, talking only about the british army and not a single word for the others. I wonder why the title is state of the armies, as in fact this is state of the british army. 90.42.227.140 (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Ginchy
The Ginchy page has been revised here Battle of Ginchy, copy edits aand comments requested. Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 12:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Lead
Had a go at the lead to address the banner, by trying a form of words which acknowledges the place of the Battle in English history and tries to set it in a continental and historiographical perspective. I've been tinkering with the main page here User talk:Keith-264/sandbox with a view to revising it on the lines of Battle of Arras (1917), now that the revision and expansion of the seperate pages is past half-way. ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 09:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Expansion and copyedit
Have reorganised the rest of the page on the lines of Arras (1917) with a view to removing the banner. Would appreciate a copy-edit and comments. ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Capture of Trônes Wood redone too.Keith-264 (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Result
The battle was not a "Pyrrhic victory" for the Allies; the Germans began their long decline to defeat as a result of the battle, had to make structural changes to the army and its relationship with German society and gamble on expedients like city-bombing and U-boat warfare. Changing from a strategy of victory in 1916 to a strategy of not losing in 1917 is a defeat. look at recent sources.Keith-264 (talk) 09:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Macmillan was a casualty
There was a short flurry of edits and I had moved a sentence about British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan out of the lede and into the body section about casualties. The cite comes from a recent book and I don't think this was book spam but there might have been a question about undue weight. There aren't any other mentions of individual soldiers in the article and without looking at the book I don't know exactly where in the battle Macmillan was. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 02:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't approve of singling individuals out because to me it smacks of elitism and I don't put VC sections in (but tolerate and properly cite ones I find since other people have different opinions). Parachuting comment about Macmillan into the lead was a mistake and the same edit had been done to other pages and reverted too. I don't like it being in the page but am willing to accept your judgement, since I asked for outsiders to take a look rather than to take sides. Thanks for tsaking the troubleKeith-264 (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

German deaths
The current version says that the Germans has 164,000 deaths during the battle, but G. J Meyer writes (page 467 of a World Undone) that total German deaths on the Western front for 1916 were only 143,000. Seems like a problem, but Meyer doesn't give a death figure for the Somme. Binarybits (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The Reichsarchiv produced this http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=69350 (third post down, from Churchill The World Crisis)Keith-264 (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The Germans lost 2.2 million dead in World War One. In 1916 there were two of the largest battles of the War, the Somme, and Germany's attack at Verdun.  I would find it hard to believe that they only had 143,000 deaths (6.5% of the total War dead) on the entire Western Front for the whole of 1916,  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.78.193 (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The French and German army Western Front losses were greatest in 1914 and 1918. Battles of attrition were less costly than open warfare and battles intended to create open warfare, by breaking through opposing defences. Because they were limited in extent and ambition they were much longer longer, dead if you did, dead if you didn't.Keith-264 (talk) 06:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * See here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Verdun#Aftermath particularly the last bit of the casualties section for some recent work on casualties in 1916. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 06:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

, according to the German Reichsarchiv data posted above:


 * Killed in action:


 * Feb-June 46,973 at French hands 10,845 at British hands 57,818 total
 * July-Oct 49,510 at French hands 32,338 at British hands 81,848 total
 * Nov-Dec 8,455 at French hands 6,135 at British hands 14,590 total

That gives total German deaths of 154,256 for the whole year or 139,666 (similar, but not exactly equal to, the 143,000 quoted) if you exclude November and December, but the Somme started on 1 July and went on into November.

However, those are only numbers for Killed in Action. The footnotes (and here is Meyer’s mistake – John Mosier made the same mistake over a decade ago) explain that you have to double them as a rough approximation for wounded who later died and missing who were never found (buried in the mud, blown to smithereens by high explosive shells etc).

German total Western Front deaths in 1916 are then more like 300,000, or 190,000 in the period 1 July to 31 Dec. So if some of them were in quiet sectors, and some at Verdun, we are looking at about 150,000 German deaths caused by the Somme (or the 164,000 quoted here), which is commensurate with casualty estimates in the 400,000-500,000 range, but not some of the grossly inflated figures (680,000) which have been hawked around by those with axes to grind. Robin Prior is occasionally criticised by idiots for having pointed out – from the same data series – that the British inflicted no more than 240,000 casualties at the Somme (a loss ratio of almost 2:1), even though he was explicitly clear that he was only talking about losses inflicted by the British, and if you include the French as well (ratios much nearer parity) German casualties are then 400,000 or more.


 * Er, French casualties on the Somme were about 200,000 so 400,000 German casualties minus the "240,000 inflicted by the British" = 160,000. On the whole, I think Wendt's numbers are about right. Note that comparisons like this take no account of the German defensive emphasis on the northern part of the Somme battlefront and their willingness to make sacrifices in the south or the huge losses inflicted by the Anglo-French in September when all four armies managed to synchronise their attacks.Keith-264 (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

In total Germany had 789,400 Western Front KIA, i.e. about 1.5m total dead, which is a sensible number out of her 1.8m-2.1m total war dead (the vast bulk of the German Army was in the West in WW1, normally at least two thirds of it).

It’s always good to compare numbers like this, provided one does so properly, e.g. looking them over for internal consistency as I’ve done here. The French were still doing a lot more fighting, throughout the war, than tends to come through in a lot of British accounts, even if it was the BEF which achieved spectacular success in autumn 1918. About a third of German Western Front deaths, or about a quarter of the total (ballpark) were inflicted at British hands.

Philpott’s claim that the Germans suffered “500,000 permanent losses on the Somme” is absurd, unsubstantiated and has already been held up to justified academic ridicule.

This is completely separate from the issue of German casualties, which various British writers over the years have attempted to massage upwards “to include the lightly wounded”. Current scholarship says that they should be adjusted upwards by about 10% iirc, not the 30% figure which was once mooted.

These all come from the Reichsarchiv data. There is a separate data series called the Sanitaets Bericht (medical report) whose total is not all that different but which does not match off exactly.

Keith’s point about attrition being less costly than breakthrough or open warfare is largely true. The problem is that at the Somme Haig was – whatever he and his apologists later tried to claim – clearly aiming or hoping to achieve breakthrough, usually with inadequate artillery fire. Hence the ghastly British casualties – 196,000 – in July 1916 (almost off the scale on the graph in the link) when he thought he was exploiting success achieved in the southern sector of the British line. The only time he talked of attrition (“wearing out”) whilst the Somme was actually in progress was in August – prior to the decisive breakthrough which he hoped to achieve at Flers-Courcelette in September. Hence the informed critique of Haig that, far from being the unimaginative slogger of popular myth, he actually wasn’t focussed enough on attrition at this stage.Paulturtle (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Haig's strategy for the Somme was Joffre's strategy with local variations and as records from the time demonstrate, Haig was participating in the strategy decided at Chantilly which was to attack the Germans simultaneously. The Allies were forestalled by the Verdun offensive but still managed to pull off something like the intended offensives, to reduce the prssure at Verdun, kill Germans and assist the other Allied armies, which brought the German armies closer to collapse than at any time since 1914. Haig's views about what was possible varied all through 1916, based on the knowledge he had of the readiness of the contending armies. The important thing to grasp was that Haig was not the dictator of British never mind Allied strategy and he always insisted on having plans ready for a sudden German collapse. This is talked up by naysayers and whingeing Australians but always collapses when contemporary records rather than post hoc apologetics and pop-historical book advertising are studied. Can anyone state an offensive when Haig didn't have preparations made for an exploitation? Oh and the British and French did exploit the success in the south - ask the Germans, who all too often have the role of Banquo's ghost in debates like these.Keith-264 (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Urgent: Request locking of Battle of the Somme and dispute resolution
Please would one of the Coordinators lock the article temporarily until a dispute resolution/arbitration can be arranged.Keith-264 (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no dispute, only an edit war waged by one editor Keith-264 who had great difficulty expressing his analysis of the Somme. Rjensen (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Related Articles?
What, if anything, is the connection between this article and Operation Michael and Second Battle of the Somme (1918)? A first glance would suggest that this is the primary article and then those two go into more details about the two battles, but then I'd expect "Main article" links to that effect in this article and, "point-back" links in the two "subsidiary" articles. There is *some* inter-article linking, but not in the form I'd expect where there was a primary and two subsidiaries. As it stands, there's a danger the non-expert reader may think that the three articles are entirely *unrelated*. Or maybe they *are* unrelated? Is this worth clarifying, because at the moment it seems a bit confusing? (The confusion is made worse by the "(1918)" at the end of the second battle's title, since it could imply there was another Second Battle of the Somme in a different year. But I guess that's a point for that Article's Talk page.) Thomask0 (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You've already admitted bad faith so I'll wait for a coordinator to offer a ruling.Keith-264 (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've no idea what that comment refers to. Thomask0 (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Thomask0's edit which appears to have altered the sense of my last edit
Thomask0, would you kindly please explain this edit, which, in addition to making a number of comments yourself, appears to have tried to append the words 'looks pretty near to where it should be' to the end of my most recent comment ? User:The ed17 has already issued a stern warning to one of the participants here; I am tempted to issue another. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To me, that looks like a simple transcription error. YMMV. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Buckshot06, I think what happened is that I was copy-pasting your name for use at the start of one of my edits (as I've done here), but inadvertently *cut*-paste, removing your name (leaving the "(talk)") piece only. In repairing that prior to committing my edits I must have inadvertently pasted back the additional "'looks pretty near to where it should be" which I'd already used elsewhere. I hope you can see that it can't have been a purposeful attempt to change the sense of what you wrote, because instead it rendered it completely sense-less. It was purely inadvertent, as User:The ed17 suggests. Thomask0 (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for that response Thomask0. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Historiography
There is a new book out on the battle that deserves a good deal of attention: From the Somme to Victory: The British Army's Experience on the Western Front 1916-1918 by Peter Simkins, published Oct 30, 2014. Simkins is a leading revisionist, and makes a strong argument that the battle was a learning experience, and what the British learned help them win the war in 1918. The generals, in other words, learn how not to be donkeys. Happily, a large part of the book is available free on Amazon. Simkins Traces the historiography of the battle, showing how the popular viewpoint in Britain grew more and more negative, especially in the antiwar 1960s. But at the same time specialists like himself started looking at the battle in the context of a "learning experience" for the British officers. Rjensen (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * He is not a revisionist, the Butchers and Bunglers school are the revisionists. The learning curve was a heuristic used by some historians but hasn't stood up to scrutiny, since it is parochial (or insular) ignoring the context of a coalition war. The British changed their methods as fast as their equipment allowed them to and weren't picky about taking examples from the other armies in the war. They did this in the context of strategy dictated from London and in deference to the demands of their Allies. If the British generals were ever donkeys, then all of the other generals were too.Keith-264 (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're interested in the Great Man theory of history in Great War articles, Paulturtle's writing on the likes of Haig and Gough is well worth a look.Keith-264 (talk) 11:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Toying with alternate leads
Keith makes a good point in that the rest of the lead could do with being a bit tighter, not least because it would make it easier to add back a brief comment on the lead. I don't think it matters that the final paragraph be the same size as the rest -- the historiographical controversy is still a somewhat lesser point than the battle itself -- but it certainly wouldn't do any harm to trim some of the rest. Here is an attempt. I imagine this is *highly* subject to edits because as I've said, I'm not a Somme expert, and I've pruned this the way I'd prune roses -- hard. But I am an expert in being a non-expert reader of this article, and so I offer it as something that makes sense and reads OK for a typical reader. I've pulled it out into its own section because I don't want to further clutter the main debate, nor do I want to pre-empt any decision that this approach (adding back a brief summary) is the consensus. (Keith, I take your "what I think and there is what I'll do to obtain consensus" point, but I still don't want to put consensus in your mouth as it were.) But feel free anyone to move it into that main debate section.

So, possible alternative lead:

The Battle of the Somme (French: Bataille de la Somme, German: Schlacht an der Somme), also known as the Somme Offensive, was a battle of the First World War fought by the armies of the British and French empires against the German Empire. It took place between 1 July and 18 November 1916 on both sides of the River Somme in France. The battle was one of the largest of World War I, in which more than 1,000,000 men were wounded or killed, making it one of the bloodiest battles in human history. The battle is also notable for the importance of air power and the first use of the tank.

The first day on the Somme was a serious defeat for the German Second Army, which was forced out of its first line of defence by the French Sixth Army and British Fourth Army. In terms of casualties, 1 July 1916 was also the worst day in the history of the British Army -- which on the Somme was a mixture of the remains of the pre-war regular army, the Territorial Force and the Kitchener Army -- suffered c. 60,000 casualties.

At the end of the battle, British and French forces had penetrated 6 miles (9.7 km) into German-occupied territory, taking more ground than any offensive since the Battle of the Marne in 1914. However, the Anglo-French armies failed to capture Péronne and were still 3 miles (4.8 km) from Bapaume, where the German armies maintained their positions over the winter. British attacks in the Ancre valley resumed in January 1917 and forced the Germans into local withdrawals to reserve lines in February, before the scheduled retirement to the Siegfriedstellung (Hindenburg Line) began in March.

This battle was and continues to be controversial over its significance and, given the number of lives lost, its necessity. At the center of the controversy are the actions of Haig, Churchill and the then British Prime Minister, Lloyd George. Commentators in the controversy assert that the battle was, variously, a debacle, or an unavoidable strategic imperative.

Thomask0 (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I think I failed to communicate what I meant; equalising the length of the paragraphs is an aesthetic consideration, not a matter of the emphasis given in them to aspects of the article, if the succinct sentence goes in, that's the only other concern I'd have. Please also note that it's in British English. Keith-264 (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * By "aesthetic" do you mean in a typographical and text layout sense? If so, I think that has to take second place to content and meaning, especially in a non-paper form such as WP. As to form of English, I am a Brit but I live in the US, so I've maybe been infected by this lot over here. What of my edits were US-ish? Finally, just out of interest, what is it that determines what form of English any given article takes? Thomask0 (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seppoes! I did wonder.... Yes, Wiki is in prose so shouldn't look like a list, which unequal paragraphs or isolated sentences resemble. It's to resolve potentially contradictory demands like this, that I try to write sentences with the fewest words possible. Notice that your potential redrafts tend to gain words each time? I try to increase meaning by changing words, rather than adding them. Try rephrasing anglophone monoglots in two or fewer words ;O) Usually the form of English goes with national ties [wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Strong_national_ties_to_a_topic] Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So should I just delete this entire "Toying with alternate leads" section, since I seem to have misunderstood your point? I don't want this to distract us from the main points expressed in the above (now pretty humongous) "Recent edit warring" discussion.

Thomask0 (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh could we? (<--- Keith)


 * I see there's a way of collapsing a section without deleting it completely. I'll try that. Thomask0 (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

While I'm here though, here are a few language/naming questions (not connected with our overall debate): I'm genuinely simply asking here; I'm not proposing those things be changed unless it was generally felt appropriate. Thomask0 (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) What are the guidelines that result in an Article's title being also provided in various other languages -- i.e. in this case in French and German? I often find that cumbersome and would prefer to see it in a footnote, but it happens so often I assume it is part of some overall WP SOP. Is that the case?
 * 2) In the lead there is reference to "...the Siegfriedstellung (Hindenburg Line)". Why isn't that "...the Hindenburg Line (Siegfriedstellung )"?
 * It should be, originally I thought that the German term should go first since they built it.
 * 1) Why is the article' title "The Battle of the Somme" and not "The First Battle of the Somme"? Or at least why isn't "The First Battle of the Somme" provided as an alternative name, along with "the Somme Offensive" in the opening sentence?
 * 2) In the Prelude, in the sub-section on German defences, why does it have "After the (Herbstschlacht or Autumn Battles)" and not either "After the Herbstschlacht (Autumn Battles)"  or "After the Autumn Battles (Herbstschlacht)" ?
 * Many of titles for the British end of the Western front follow

James, E. A. (1924). A Record of the Battles and Engagements of the British Armies in France and Flanders 1914–1918 (London Stamp Exchange 1990 ed.). Aldershot: Gale & Polden. ISBN 0-948130-18-0 or the title on the OH.

It's the most common name first, then any different ones; Battle of the Somme is the most well-known in English but James has The Battles of the Somme, 1916, 1st July—18th November p. 10. I'm not sure if that was there before I got involved in the page but the leads often reflect the sources available rather than exhaust the possible names. If there are names in other languages they go in too like this, "The Battle of the Hills (French: Bataille des Monts) also known as the Battle of the Hills of Champagne and the Third Battle of Champagne." Herbstschlacht is the German term for the Third Battle of Arras and the Second Battle of Champagne and Autumn Battles is a translation. Keith-264 (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Summary of Issues
I have agreed to serve as the volunteer mediator to resolve the disputes about this article so that it can be unlocked and improved. Since a statement was made at WP:DRN that discussion is in progress at this talk page, I would encourage all of the editors to state concisely what changes they think should be made to the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Please bear in mind that I have no particular knowledge about the Battle of the Somme and no authority to impose a solution, and am trying to help the editors work collaboratively. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Discussion is continuing at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Please take discussion there, not here.

Statement by editor 2 (Thomask0)
(Notice of withdrawal removed, in light of apparent lack of consensus between myself and one of the other two editors involved, where I'd earlier thought there might be one.)

I believe that the state of the article at the time the lock was imposed is fine. Some work is now required on the historiography section, at very least (Rjensen is also proposing some work there, which sounds sensible to me) to rationalize the current components there which consist of the original contested matter that was brought down from the lead, and also some potentially duplicate matter brought in from Aftermath. However, overall the Article needs no change in structure and no moving of content.

However, although It would leave the Article in a slightly poorer condition than what I'm proposing, in the interests of reaching a consensus it would be acceptable, if anyone else felt the need, to amend the above as follows: Thomask0 (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Include in the lead a brief reference to the historiographical controversies that are later discussed in Historiography. Something like: "This battle was and continues to be controversial over its significance and necessity. At the center of the controversy are the actions of Haig, Churchill and Lloyd George."
 * If, and only if, references to the historiographical controversy are required to inform the Aftermath section, then it would be acceptable to have such (brief) references. However, where possible the reader of Aftermath should be referred to Historiography where the bulk of the details of the controversy should be placed.