Talk:Battle of the Somme/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

RFC on Controversy and Language of Writing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the phrase "especially in English-language writing" be included in the sentence: "The battle has been controversial since 1916, over its necessity, significance and effect." Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Please include your opinions in the Survey section, with the word Support to agree with inclusion of the qualifying phrase, or Oppose to disagree with inclusion of the qualifying phrase. Threaded discussion should take place in the section headed Threaded Discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Survey

• Support. Keith-264 (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Even a brief acquaintance with the non-English-language writing about the battle where passages have been translated or second-hand commentary has been written by the likes of Hew Strachan Chichele Professor of the History of War who even uses the term "monoglots", Sheldon (a German speaker), Sheffield etc, demonstrates that the controversy about the battle is peculiarly English. Ignoring this basic fact when it hangs over English-language-writing like a shroud, is mistaken and will add to the deterioration in the quality of the article. I notice that the passage has already been edited and some of the sense lost. Keith-264 (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support Rjensen (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support: Thomask0 (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Oppose: The caveat that the historiographical controversy (over necessity etc.) exists "especially in English-language writing", is itself controversial. Even in the context of this dispute, sources have been offered to back both positions in what is effectively a "controversy over the controversy". And so if the "English-language" claim over the historiographical controversy is mentioned, then accuracy would demand we also mention that the "English-language" claim is itself controversial. In other words, we'd need something like the following: "The battle has been controversial since 1916, over its necessity, significance and effect. It is claimed by some commentators [citations] that the controversy exists especially in English-language writings, however that claim itself is controversial [counter citations]." That serves to underline the fact that the "English-language" claim is not a claim about the Battle of the Somme (e.g. "Lots of men died"). It is not even a claim about a claim about the Battle (e.g. "With respect to the fact that lots of men died, there is controversy over necessity, significance and effect"). It is, instead, a claim about a claim about a claim about the Battle (e.g. "With respect to the controversy over necessity etc. of the fact that lots of men died, there is controversy over the significance of the lack of English translations of French and German documents"). Given that Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, that is too detailed a point, on too minor and editorially controversial an issue, to merit inclusion in the lede. If it needs to appear, then it (and the controversy around it) can certainly do so elsewhere in the Article. Thomask0 (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support: proposed inclusion in the lead per the RFC as long as it is supported by corresponding text in the body of the article (with citations). However, if further modification is required per Thomask0's comments above I don't see why the whole thing couldn't be included either. Thomask0 - I can understand your concern that it is too detailed a point for the lead, but I don't really see that lead length is an issue here. At three paragraphs the lead is within the guidelines (which state up to four paragraphs is acceptable - pls see WP:LEADLENGTH). Anotherclown (talk) 06:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Question. The bot sent me. Please clarify: What is the significance of the English-language writing? Why is the controversy so big with English publications? btw, it is a very well done RfC. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

the French & German historians & esp the general public in those countries paid little attention to Somme. Likewise USA (which was a neutral in 1916) It was and remains a big deal in Britain and Australia, where the massive slaughter esp on day one caused by British generals who were ignorant of modern warfare permanently shaped public opinion. Rjensen (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The French army had 27,000 men killed on 23 August 1914 and by mid-1916 had lost about 1 million casualties. The human cost of fighting Germans was well known to continentals by then. The British did not begin to fight the mass continental warfare, that France and Russia had been engaged in until mid-1916, when they lost 19,000 killed on 1 July. In the 1930s and during the 50th anniversaries in the 1960s the mud, blood and poetry school became the most well known and is still influential, although less so in academe. The British Generals were not as ignorant as purported by the likes of Lloyd George et al. but were in a similar position to the French and Russians in 1914. The British army on the Somme was a patchwork of pre-war regular army survivors, TF and New Army divisions, inconsistently trained, dubiously-equipped in some respects and facing a German army close to the peak of its powers. In 1915, the biggest engagement by the British was with one army, of two corps and nine divisions. On the Somme it was two armies, nine corps and 47 divisions, nearly five times bigger and for nearly ten times longer. By the end of the battle the British were much more experienced, dud officers had been weeded out and (with the French 6th Army) the British had fought the Germans to exhaustion, hence the collapses in the Ancre valley in early 1917 Operations on the Ancre, January–March 1917. See the notes here First day on the Somme for some of the technical deficiencies the British had to overcome.Keith-264 (talk) 08:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The latest comments by Keith-264 are useful. What happened is that Haig in 1916 after two years of war still did not understand what was happening. He ignored the lessons of the Verdun Battle (even though his attack at Somme was in large part designed to relieve pressures on Verdun). He really expected his massed charges on Day 1 would produce victory despite the repeated failures of French & German attacks at Verdun. He refused to listen to the French or to his own generals. He was a slow learner regarding modern warfare. Donkeys are like that too. They are very stubborn and farmers have to hit them very hard to gain their attention. In this case Haig did learn after he --that ism his heroic foot soldiers--took a series of very hard hits in months of repeated failures.... The British & Canadian & Australian public was outraged as were his political bosses, Even so it took him two more years to figure out the lesson of the Somme & apply them in summer 1918. That's why the donkeys and heroes theme resonates to this day. Rjensen (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

None of the above is true, the British plans for the Somme were based on the models used by the French and Germans in 1915, the Gorlice-Tarnow offensive in particular - no charging there, just an artillery battering-ram. It was the over-estimation of the effect of British artillery, which undid the British north of the Albert–Bapaume road. The ground there was more favourable for defence, much of it hidden from view, the Germans made more effort to fortify it than further south and had more men available for counter-attacks. Haig was willing to negotiate and defer to the man on the spot as laid down in FSR II (1909). British and empire public opinion was dismayed by the cost of fighting the Germans but didn't shirk the fact that that was what firepower warfare is like. The only things different in 1918 were the maturing of the British war economy and the BEF as a machine for fighting trench warfare (ammunition shortages lasted into 1917 for e.g.) and the implosion of the German army after the accelerated attrition of early 1918. Oh and don't forget that the French were there too. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The Gorlice-Tarnow Campaign is not mentioned int this article. The standard history of that campaign (Breakthrough: The Gorlice-Tarnow Campaign, 1915 by DiNardo (2010) p 139) states: "This is in stark contrast to the British Army on the Somme, for example, where the higher commanders, Sir Douglas Haig and Sir Henry Rawlinson, lost control of events after a month, resulting in uncoordinated attacks, pointless fighting, and unnecessary casualties." Cruttwell using the official histories back in the 1930s argued that the Brits used far less artillery than the French did at Somme, Haig simply had not learned the lesson that Foch had learned on how to properly use artillery. Haig simply did not have enough guns and shells for the attack he planned by a factor of five. Furthermore he lost control as DiNardo says. That makes him the donkey. Rjensen (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The British used all the artillery they had, see First day on the Somme notes for a description of some of the deficiencies of the British artillery (similar to those of the French the year before and the German trench mortars on the Somme). DiNardo is parrotting Prior and Wilson who are wrongheaded about much of what they write; you might benefit from from a look at German Strategy and the Path to Verdun: Erich von Falkenhayn and the Development of Attrition, 1870–1916 (2007) by Robert Foley. After the Battle of Bazentin Ridge 14 July, the British and the French were hampered by rain, transport problems on the Nord railways and a big drop in the amount of artillery ammunition available. Had they stopped the offensive for these operational reasons, they would have paid a strategic penalty by allowing the Germans to recover too. It was vital to keep the general Allied offensive going on the Somme, to support the Brusilov offensive and the Verdun counter-offensive. Notice that the nay-sayers tend to ignore German and French testimony about their problems? Keith-264 (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

No DiNardo has done thorough research. Haig did not have the high explosive shells he needed (he had 10% of what he needed) but did not know that --he was ignorant of ww1 artillery warfare in 1916 even after 2 years of British, French & German experience. Foch had it right but Haig and his cavalry generals were very slow learners. Rjensen (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Name calling isn't good enough; Haig was a consummate military professional (look at his background) who adopted the French methods developed since early 1915 and their revisions in early 1916 as soon as he had the means. Most of the British medium and heavy artillery fired HE not shrapnel. Oh and count the number of cavalry generals and compare that to artillery and engineer generals. Again, if French and German writing had been comprehensively translated, we wouldn't be bothering to discuss this. Keith-264 (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Keith-264 pretends that the French and German books support him--he has never quoted any or cited any., I dare say he has not actually read any. Rjensen (talk) 05:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

That's an unworthy comment, even for an anglophone monoglot. Above are plenty of references to German writing and English writers who quote it or translate it, while bemoaning that there is still much to do. Keith-264 (talk) 08:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

• The battle has been controversial since 1916, over its necessity, significance and effect. (It is claimed by some commentators [citations] that the controversy exists especially in English-language writings, however that claim itself is controversial [counter citations].)

I don't like the extra sentence because it contains citations which are redundant in the Lead, since the matter has to be cited in the text to justify its existence in the article. The words "however" and "itself" are otiose and the fact that the controversy exists in English-language writing is incontrovertible. "It is claimed" is pointless, the fact of a "claim" is what's being reported. I would avoid "commentator" since it is a judgemental word rather than descriptive like "historian" or "writer". I would also point out that the original Lead had been criticised for weaselling so a list of authors had been appended and the Analysis section amended to list the historians and writers, each one being cited. Why not go back to the original Lead which had a list of writers and historians and the original Analysis which had all the citations? Logic chopping and hair-splitting will reduce the Lead to fatuity. Keith-264 (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I was absolutely not proposing we include that extra sentence. I was making a reductio ad absurdum point. Thomask0 (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we are all in pretty much in agreement-- but I note that some outsider has changed the lead, and I think it should be changed back to what we have just agreed upon. Rjensen (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Quite agree. Keith-264 (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Should one of us do it, or does that risk the wrath of the WP gods? Thomask0 (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I hope Robert McClenon will do it. he's handled this case very well!! Rjensen (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Ditto. I consider Robert more a helpful intermediary than one of the wrathfuls god; a Maia to their Ainur as it were; a Blackadder to their Melchett. Thomask0 (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I've amended the Lead to The battle has remained controversial since 1916, over its necessity, significance and effect. as agreed but only on the assumption that General Melchett won't pooh-pooh it.Keith-264 (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

At first glance I was inclined to pooh-pooh your concern about pooh-poohs, since I don't think Melchett would ever pooh-pooh, it being a court martial offence. But then I reckoned that since he also would not pooh-pooh a pooh-pooh (terrible for morale) then he probably wouldn't pooh-pooh a concern over being pooh-poohed. So I think your edit's fine. Thomask0 (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Amended para 2 in the same vein. Keith-264 (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

historiography

"This view sees the British contribution to the battle as part of a coalition war and part of a process, which took the strategic initiative from thGerman Army and caused it irreparable damage, leading to its collapse in late 1918." The relative clause after 'process' is almost certainly defining and, as such, requires no comma.

It is not clear to me why there should be ignorance of what French and German historians write if their work is incorporated, quoted, alluded to by English-speaking historians, of whom a knowledge of French and German can reasonably be expected.Pamour (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Well there isn’t really, but this was the subject of a ghastly edit war which went on for about 2 or 3 talk pages a year and a half ago, which I sadly missed as I was taking a break from WW1 at the time. Plenty of educated people are perfectly capable of deciphering written French and German and some of us can even make ourselves understood on holiday. We’re not talking Russian or Turkish here. It’s true at the micro-level, people like Jack Sheldon writing detailed accounts about specific front-line fights. But at the macro level there has always been access to at least some German accounts, all the way back to the inter-war period. It is most certainly not the case that the Somme was “really” an Allied victory and that this is revealed by German accounts which have remained secret until now. There is an interesting German official history (or extracts thereof) by Humphries & Maker appearing in English, based on primary sources lost to WW2 bombing. It will be interesting to see what the 1916 volume has to say about the Somme.

And as for “took the strategic initiative from thGerman Army” I think the less said of that claim the better, but I’ve posted enough this evening.Paulturtle (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Map of the Battle of the Somme, 1916.svg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Map of the Battle of the Somme, 1916.svg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 1, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-07-01. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The Battle of the Somme was a battle of the First World War fought between 1 July and 18 November 1916 by the armies of the British and French empires against the German Empire. The largest battle of World War I on the Western Front, it was fought on both sides of upper reaches of the River Somme in France. More than one million men were wounded or killed, making it one of the bloodiest battles in human history.

This map shows the situation on the first day on the Somme, as well as Allied gains up to 19 November 1916.Map: Grandiose

French Empire or Republic

I have raised the question already on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors as the map from this article is today's featured image but I raise it here again because it is probably the better location. The article states "fought by the armies of the British and French empires against the German Empire." France was a Republic at the time, the French Third Republic to be precise, not an empire. Now I get the French colonial empire bit but the main World War I article, in the intro and infobox, pipes France to French Third Republic, not French colonial empire. This seems inconsistend. Should it not be French Republic as that is the country Germany invaded in 1914 and fought against, not the colonial empire? Calistemon (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• Because in the main WWI article, it does not refer to "armies of the ... French Empire" (i.e. France and its colonies). It refers to France (the French Third Republic) as the country which helped establish the Triple Entente. Two different links/terms for two different functions. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Somme centenary

Asking a question of the regular editors of this page - today and over this weekend, a lot of the centenary events relating to the Somme will be held in the UK and elsewhere. Are there any plans to expand the 'Commemoration' section? I am asking because there are a number of approaches that could be taken.

• (i) The Somme commemoration section could be gradually expanded (including the 50th anniversary commemoration, which was a more subdued affair, but some sources do mention it) to mention the more prominent centenary events and commemorations, which may also take place in November as well. More could be said on the regular annual events as well - some sources do cover that.
• (ii) Material could also be added to First World War centenary, which is currently organised by country (lots more could be added on many centenary topics there).
• (iii) For the centenary of the outbreak of the war, which was widely marked and covered in the news, I wrote a short article Centenary of the outbreak of World War I. There may be enough on the Somme centenary to take that approach - I am wary of doing that as some opposed the specific article approach back in 2014.

Now we are nearly at the halfway point of the centenary years of the war itself (August 1914/2014 to November 1918/2018), and the centenary of battles such as Verdun and Jutland have also been marked, does the coverage of the various commemorations justify separate articles for these events or not, or should the commemorations be covered in the articles themselves? Maybe a timeline article on the commemorations by battles or campaigns (rather than divided by nationality) may be a better way to organise a rather diverse topic? Carcharoth (talk) 06:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

First day of the Somme: "...the worst day in the history of the British army..."

I wonder whether perhaps this sentence, in the intro, needs a little clarification or qualification. Some time ago I added the words "In terms of casualties...", but these were removed in subsequent edits several weeks later. The "worst day", without qualification, is somewhat subjective, especially when one considers events like the Fall of Singapore in 1942, which Churchill described as the "worst disaster" and "largest capitulation" in British military history.

I notice that in the Aftermath (Analysis) section, the qualification is given and the sentence reads, "British casualties on the first day were the worst in the history of the British army, with 57,470 British casualties, 19,240 of whom were killed." (WatermillockCommon (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC))

Casualties in infobox

I think some clarification is needed as the infobox clashes with the tables and information in the casualty section. British and French casualties seem to be, from the variety of sources presented in the casualty section, set in stone around the 600,000 mark. Yet, with - from what i can see - no apparent reason, Churchill's higher figure is used without any particular reason to explain why it is more accurate despite a comment that it is a "snapshot" that is not "representative of the rest of the battle".

Likewise, it is noted that the official German casualty figure (pointed out as the best source) of around 500,000 is accurate and pretty much anything over that is discredited. Yet, albeit only a slightly larger figure, is quoted in the infobox and attributed to Churchill. Again, some clarification seems to be in order to avoid confusion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC) Bumping this due to the archivebot possibly obscuring this from talkpage watchers.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Was just going to mention this, glad someone saw it first. It's likely the best solution is to present it as a range, because both numbers come from reliable sources. I would assume that the higher count for both is probably more accurate, since it would be more than just a snapshot of the battle and includes numbers from related operations. That said, I can't confirm that. So presenting a range is probably optimal. DaltonCastle (talk) 02:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for the lengthy post, but people seem to be guessing in the dark here.

Churchill’s figure is not “a snapshot of July 1916”. Philpott is wrong about that. WSC simply pointed out that a comparison of the official casualty figures of both sides shows that British losses exceeded German (whereas at Verdun French losses exceeded German) to a degree which makes it questionable whether the Somme was much of an attritional success. Despite loud attempts to rubbish him by massaging the German figures upwards this has been broadly confirmed by modern scholarship. (The official British attempts to add 30% were discredited by M J Williams; McRandall & Quirk suggest the German Reichsarchiv numbers which WSC used need to be bumped up by about 10% to bring them in line with the Sanitaets-Bericht data, but that still brings them nowhere near parity; similar adjustments have been done to the Verdun figures).

What Philpott, who never passes up an opportunity to sneer at and bad-mouth Churchill, is saying is that Churchill’s figures are “a snapshot” whereas Philpott is correct in some deep and mystical sense, which the politicians at the time were too stupid to see, that the Somme was part of some process whereby Germany was destroyed by attrition. Yes, I know it sounds a bit silly when expressed in those terms and it is obviously tendentious and misleading – it ignores the fact that the cost to the Allies was pretty nearly prohibitive, for example. If anything it’s Philpott who concentrates far too much on a snapshot – the brief period in autumn 1916 when the Germans were being pressed hard on all fronts, something the Allies never again managed to achieve.

For all Philpott’s obvious faults as an historian (his exaggerated arguments have been subjected to quite strong attack by Prior and Greenhalgh for starters), and his gratuitous sniping at Churchill aside, he does actually offer a reasonable summary of the Somme casualty debate, which I’d used to expand the relevant section about six years ago. Sadly it was then not-very-competently summarised and rewritten by an editor who had best remain nameless but whose inability to cope with being told that he has got something wrong and whose delight in edit-warring caused me to back off. It contains quite a few mistakes only obvious to a genuine expert – it’s not quite true, for example, that Prior “used Churchill’s research” whilst elsewhere Prior’s research is misattributed to Philpott who is actually quoting Prior with approval.

Since then other people have added nonsense.

The same editor who added “537,919 casualties” to the infobox then added this to the main casualty section (and I wasted half an hour last weekend tracking this down): “537,919 casualties, of which 338,011 losses were inflicted by the French and 199,908 losses by the British. In turn German forces inflicted 794,238 casualties on the Entente” along with what appear to be bogus page numbers (and deleting a correct page number which was there before). I dare say he got those numbers from somewhere, but they’re not in the 1938 abridged edition of Churchill’s World Crisis. The page number in the infobox is actually a page about the (sea) Battle of Dogger Bank in 1915! Indeed Churchill doesn’t offer a total number for German losses, but if he had done it would most likely have been the German “official” number of 465,000 or whatever it is. So that needs to come out.

Somebody else recently added to the infobox (cited to a book about Hitler’s war experiences in Flanders and possible homosexuality, which may or may not be a worthy topic for discussion but is clearly not an authoritative source for this topic): 481,842 British losses (probably too high). As for the 236,194 German losses, that number is immediately recognisable: it’s for the entire British sector of the Western Front from 1 July (you need to knock off a bit for quiet sectors and add on a bit for the bombardment in June, two factors which perhaps cancel out, but far more importantly the Germans also suffered losses at French hands bringing their total Somme losses over 400,000). So that wasn’t really a helpful addition (although I don’t doubt it was made in good faith) and needs to come out as well.

Action Points:

I’ve actually got some analysis of the Somme chapter of Churchill’s World Crisis brewing on my sandbox. Hopefully I should get round to posting that soon in the relevant article, and add a link.

Unless I hear any serious objections – and objections to fixing mistakes need to be very serious - I’m just going to fix the mistakes in the ruddy casualties section some time in the next week or two. It’s been pissing me off for years.

I certainly agree that the infobox should show a range of sensible numbers and not try for bogus accuracy, but that’s more open to discussion.

The real major thing that needs doing is a proper summary of the arguments about the effects of the Somme. My bookshelves heave with heavyweight historians, including ones who write from a German or French perspective. Many of them, for example, discuss how “relieving the pressure on Verdun” was only part of the motivation for the Somme but one which Haig made much of after the event. Many also mention the effect on the Allies, for example – it brought the French nearer to breaking point and the British and French Governments were so horrified that they turned to the snake-oil salesman Nivelle rather than risk a repetition, indeed Britain never again conducted an offensive on such a scale until she threw her final chips onto the table in autumn 1918. But we don’t read this in the article at all. So anyway, I’ll post some summaries of the opinions of proper historians here in the next week or two. I’m not advocating deleting anything, but there needs to be a bit more than cherrypicked quotes from von Kuhl et al and the claims made in certain quarters that it had the Germans by the throat, eviscerated the German Army etc etc, endlessly repeated by what might politely be called “a certain kind of British milhist”.

Apropos the mild edit war that has been going on lately, there isn’t really any consensus over what to call the Somme – it’s a perfectly arguable point of view that it was a “Pyrrhic Allied Victory” or an “Allied Victory on Points” (calling it an out-and-out Allied victory as the article was claiming for a few years is clearly absurd and going far beyond even what Philpott or Sheffield claim). But then there are relatively sensible historians out there who describe the Somme as a “failure”. You pays your money and you takes your choice.Paulturtle (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Undoubtedly allied losses were significantly heavier than German losses, however this needs to be understood in the context that: 1) in most situations, attacking forces would be expected to sustain heavier losses than defending forces; and 2) the Germans eventually withdrew to the Hindenburg Line - a strategic retreat, certainly, but a retreat nonetheless, and one which ultimately served no useful purpose. Thus the allies managed to take the field, albeit at an horrific cost. Add to this the fact that Germany was compelled to abandon the Verdun Offensive (which undoubtedly was a German defeat), and the Somme could best be described as a pyrrhic allied victory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.199.236.90 (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of the Somme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://samilitaryhistory.org/vol072iu.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929104228/http://www.puredarren.com/somme.htm to http://www.puredarren.com/somme.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2016

139.182.7.66 (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2016

I would like to reorder the battles in the Third Phase section. Currently Transloy (1/10-11/11) was before Thiepval (26/9-28/9) which interrupts the flow of the section. WesleyLivesay (talk) 13:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done! DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 15:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC).

The longest artillery fire ever

I can't find anything about the one week long artillery fire. General Henry Rawlinson believed it was possible to destroy all German lines (and his superior, Field Marshal Douglas Haig, possibly hoped the cavalry then "could ride all the way to Berlin"). But the German lines wasn't just trenches, but also very deep bunkers, in which the Germans were pretty safe after all. And the shells didn't destroy the barbed wires as expected, which slowed down the soldiers. I watched a BBC (or ITV) film-documentary about this battle, and the British commanders caused the worst day in British military history - ever, as the men began to advance the enemy lines. And also the cooperation with the French worked poorly (which remained a Entente problem until French Ferdinand Foch eventually was appointed supreme commander of all allied forces). Especially the length of the artillery fire ought to be mentioned already in the lead, just as the terrible result measured in human lives, the fist day as well as during the entire battle. Much is good written and well sourced, but I find the article to be incomplete. Boeing720 (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of the Somme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070609104522/http://awm.gov.au/wartime/36/article.asp to http://www.awm.gov.au/wartime/36/article.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Churchill in 1916

In the Historiography section it says 'On 1 August 1916 Winston Churchill criticised the British Army's conduct of the offensive to the British Cabinet, claiming that though the battle had forced the Germans to end their offensive at Verdun, attrition was damaging the British armies more than the German armies.' There does not seem to be a citation for this. I am slightly doubtful about the reliability of this as Churchill was not in the Cabinet in August 1916, having resigned in 1915 and not gaining a new ministerial position until 1917.While it is possible he criticised the offensive to individual cabinet ministers or in the House of Commons it seems unlikely he would have been in a position to address the whole cabinet as this implies. Dunarc (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

February 2018

Change "[[Allies of World War I|Allied]] [[Chantilly Conferences|discussions]] at [[Chantilly, Oise]]" (in the lead) to "[[Chantilly Conferences|Allied discussions at Chantilly]]" - to avoid overlinking, and also since all the articles linked currently are also linked (in the first sentence, nonetheless) on the Chantilly conferences page. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done — MRD2014 ^Talk 03:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that there is a better way to tell where exactly Chantilly is. Change again to "...discussions in Chantilly, France, in December 1915." Arguably, "Chantilly" is clearly a French place name so that precision could also just be removed and the resulting wording would "..., in Chantilly, ...". 198.84.253.202 (talk) 04:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Previous edit by MRD2014 is better. "Chantilly" is probably not "clearly French" to all users. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Introduction

I believe it should be added that, besides hastening an end to the war, the Somme Offensive was an attempt by British Command to relieve the French at Verdun by drawing away German divisions that could have been used in the assault. Dann carroll (talk) 09:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Dann carroll:, a better reflection of the actual situation is already contained in the second paragraph of the lead: Initial plans called for the French army to undertake the main part of the Somme offensive...When the Imperial German Army began the Battle of Verdun ... French commanders diverted many of the divisions intended for the Somme and the "supporting" attack by the British became the principal effort. The Allied plans for the Somme predated the manpower drain at Verdun. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

German killed & missing

I see that there are five different sources for German total casualties, but there seems to be only one source for German killed & missing. The sources used for total casualties are:

• Wendt, Verdun 1916 Die Angriffe Falkenhayns im Maasgebiet mit Richtung auf Verdun als strategisches Problem (1931)
• Miles, Military Operations France and Belgium, 1916: 2nd July 1916 to the End of the Battles of the Somme. History of the Great War Based on Official Documents by Direction of the Historical Section of the Committee of Imperial Defence (1938)
• Harris, Douglas Haig and the First World War (2008)
• Philpott, Bloody Victory: The Sacrifice on the Somme and the Making of the Twentieth Century (2009)
• Sheffield, Chief: Douglas Haig and the British Army (2011)

Do all these authors agree on 164,000 German killed & missing?

(I don't really understand how there references in the table are used, but it looks like the source used for German killed & missing is Boaston, Sir Douglas Haig's Despatches (1919).)

Kindest /EriFr (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anybody really "agrees" on any of this stuff, or not exactly at any rate, but the number given - 164,055 - is the exact number from the German Reichsarchiv for killed and missing as of 1927 when Charles Oman quoted it. Also 272,596 wounded, for a total of 436,651 German casualties. I'll spare you the weird and wonderful calculations (two lots of them) by which Oman got that up to 530,000 - torture the data hard enough and it will confess to anything, as they say. I'm guessing the number probably appears in Wendt 1931. The numbers were, I think revised up a bit in the 1930s. I don't have a copy of Miles (1938) to hand so he may have a somewhat higher number of German deaths. As noted above, modern scholarship suggests that the Reichsarchiv data need to be bumped up by about 11% to bring them into line with the San-Bericht data (the German medical report).Paulturtle (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Simkins 2003 no work listed

There is no Simkins 2003 work listed. DuncanHill (talk) 01:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Churchill's tables

I have made an edit in an attempt to correct a rather misleading use of Churchill's tables on the Western Front. I am still not happy with it — the remaining material is not much better fare. But Churchill's method used in the World Crisis is unorthodox and it is easy to arrive at the wrong conclusion. Possibly a good part of the section should be cleaned up and reorganised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.205.196 (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

This material is of course an absolute minefield for the unwary - more than once over the years, I think, schoolkids have come here demanding just one number they can put in their essay! Sorry to disappoint ...

We probably ought to be including a comment that the Reichsarchiv figures which Churchill used need to be reduced to take account of "wastage" on quiet sectors but on the other hand bumped up to include casualties in June (to the Allied bombardment) and November. Somebody says so somewhere, but I forget who and where.

As for Churchill's method being "unorthodox", he was just going on what he had at the time and making guesstimates based on the German figures for the whole front. I don't think he ever offered a specific set of figures for the Battle itself (at least I haven't been able to find it). His main conclusion, that Allied casualties greatly exceeded those of the Germans, to a degree which makes it at least debatable whether the battle was really much of an attritional success, is accepted by almost everybody with any sense - even Philpott.

Matters are not helped by Oman (who was put up by the powers-that-be to rubbish Churchill) and Edmonds, who compared Churchill's figure for Verdun with Wendt's figure, and imagined he had discovered a hard-and-fast 30% difference between German casualties "gross" and "net" of lightly wounded. In both cases they were confusing data across different time periods and muddling data across the whole front with estimates for the Battle itself. They were both debunked as long ago as 1964 by MJ Williams, whose work is quoted and expanded upon by Robin Prior in his 1983 book on The World Crisis. By the 1940s Edmonds was including men who were given first aid and were still fit for duty (Dienstfaehig) to bump up the German figures for Third Ypres, but that is covered in the relevant article, or was when I last looked.

And then we come once again to Bill Philpott. For all his faults he offers a fair summary of the literature on Somme casualties, but he lets himself down with an odd comment about Churchill's figures being "a snapshot for July". Of course he is entirely right that British casualties in July 1916 were horrific (although actually exploiting relative success on the southern part of the British line, but that is a discussion for another occasion) but that the Germans were much harder pressed in the autumn. However, it is simply not the case that Churchill's figures are "a snapshot for July". Maybe he was confusing the Oman debate - Oman made some claims about battalion-level (IIRC) casualties in the Ovillers sector. Maybe he was just getting confused. I don't know. I'm inclined to think that his comment probably ought to be footnoted for its obscurity and tendency to confuse.

Modern research (McRandle & Quirk) says that the Reichsarchiv data which Churchill used need to be bumped up by about 10% to bring them into line with the San-Bericht data. That still leaves Allied casualties greatly exceeding German, as Churchill pointed out. This is what Gary Sheffield is referring to when he says (repeatedly and misleadingly) that "Churchill was relying on a discredited source".

To be honest I think there is more than enough material out there to justify separate articles on the casualties and on the results of the battle. I haven't got the time to write it at the moment, though.Paulturtle (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Footnote now added as I had a brainwave and reckon Philpott might be referring to Churchill's August 1916 paper. If I ever do more work on this it will be the debunking of Oman (not currently mentioned in the article at all) and Edmonds by MJ Williams, as expanded upon by Robin Prior. Not making any immediate promises though.Paulturtle (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Lest anyone be misled by my comments above, it seems Churchill did offer a total figure for the Somme - somewhere in the region of 230,000 German losses inflicted by the British but I think it only appears in the full 6-volume version of The World Crisis, not the 2-vol abridged edition which I own.Paulturtle (talk) 04:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Paulturtle: I don't think the two-volume Odhams edition is abridged - it's the first four volumes (that is, without The Aftermath or "The Eastern Front), but with the addition of the extra material on the Battle of the Marne that had first appeared in the one-volume abridgement. See the Foreword to the New Edition "In the present edition, therefore, it takes its place for the first time in the complete work". DuncanHill (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

From the draft article on the Somme casualties controversy. haven't done any work on it since March but I think I've got to the bottom of the figure of 230,000 German losses inflicted by the British:

Prior and Wilson write that “there is no reason to doubt [the] accuracy” of the early 1920s Reichsarchiv which Churchill used. However, they observe that Churchill's figure (200,000 German casualties at British hands on the Somme between July and October 1916) needs to be adjusted upwards to account for casualties suffered in the June bombardment and in the fighting in November. This is broadly consistent with the British initial figures (War Office Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire, 1922) of German losses of 237,000 between June and December. Knocking off of the December casualties, after the Battle of the Somme had finished, suggests a German casualty figure somewhere in the region of c. 230,000 losses inflicted by the British.Paulturtle (talk) 03:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Paul, it's been a while.

• Whitehead, R. J. (2013). The Other Side of the Wire: The Battle of the Somme. With the German XIV Reserve Corps, 1 July 1916. Vol. II. Solihull: Helion. ISBN 978-1-907677-12-0.
• Whitehead, R. J. The Other Side of the Wire: With the XIV Reserve Corps: The Period of transition 2 July 1916 – August 1917. Vol. III (1st ed.). Warwick: Helion. ISBN 978-1-911512-47-9.
• Lossberg, Fritz von (2017). Lossberg's War: The World War I Memoirs of a German Chief of Staff. Foreign Military Studies. Translated by Zabecki, D. T.; Biedekarken, D. J. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 978-0-8131-6980-4. Translation of Meine Tätigkeit im Weltkriege 1914–1918 (Berlin, Mittler und Sohn 1939)
• These might help, Whitehead is very good on the difficulty of accurate casualty counts, particularly during the bombardment and the first day; pity his index isn't due until vol. IV. Lossberg had no reason to inflate German casualties. Why anyone wants to share out German casualties between the British and the French is another question. Keith-264 (talk) 10:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Results of the Somme

Given that Strategic attrition was the fundamental cause for the Somme Offensive (as per Joffre's General Allied Offensive), and the Germans withdrew to the Hindenburg Line as a direct result of the Somme battle (Operation Alberich, rationale partly stated in the aftermath section) would it not be valuable to incorporate this into the "Result" and "Territorial Changes" sections at the articles opening? F.M. Sir D.H (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I have now placed Operation Alberich after Somme/Ancre to clarfiy that Alberich is part of an interconnected flow of events. Work now still needs to be done: merging the Operation Alberich paragraphs to avoid duplication, and a new analysis paragraph which comments on Alberich as a consequence of the Somme offensive, as you have proposed. The 2016 BBC documentary by Peter Barton can be cited for this purpose.86.161.82.215 (talk) 08:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, I'm not sure that a mere BBC documentary amounts to a reliable source. I'd look for something more substantial. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The reasons for the withdrawal to the Hindenberg Line are quite nuanced. Amongst other things the Germans wanted to free up troops and better withstand any 1917 Allied offensive, but they were still optimistic of holding on until the Allies threw in the towel, hopefully within a year or so. They are discussed on p 149 of "Haig's Enemy", Jonathan Boff's 2018 biog of Crown Prince Rupprecht, which I happen to have open in front of me, and doubtless in other places as well. The page on Operation Alberich seems to have a fair bit of discussion.Paulturtle (talk) 23:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

In agreement with the above comments regarding Alberich, which I think has been sufficiently explained in the Analysis section of the article. Boff does indeed paint a more nuanced picture on the rationale behind Operation Alberich. As far as the Somme is concerned, this may be an academic debate about the extent to which the Somme was the leading factor in initiating the withdrawal (but by no means the only).

Noticeably, the Results section in the infobox has been changed to "Allied Failure", the reference for which is a fairly brief article on Encyclopedia Britannica. Aside from being a highly disputable characterisation, I'm not sure this does any justice to the information in the Analysis section, or the wide historiography of the Somme & its outcome. Would it not be better to simply provide a link to the Analysis Section in the infobox (as was once the case), or if not then consider an overhaul? F.M. Sir D.H (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

In his memoirs, Lossberg wrote that the 1st and 2nd armies had lost "approximately half a million brave soldiers", the British 410,000 and the French approximately 300,000 [obviously an exaggeration]. (p. 258) He wrote that the improvised British army fought "courageously", "despite its shortcomings. The French suffered fewer losses but these were on top of the 1914, 1915 and Verdun casualties; the French offensive in 1917 "...failed largely because the French army was then lacking the necessary inner strength". I wouldn't bother with the infobox because the article was hijacked by mediocrities several years ago [not that I'm bitter ;O)]. Keith-264 (talk) 11:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Lossberg wrote that he was for a retreat to the Siegfriedstellung "...because reliefs were no longer being conducted in our area of operations and the likelihood of a British attack against the northern sector of the 1st Army was increasing". (p. 268)

Philpott 2009

When you click on Philpott 2009 in the refs it doesn't take you to the work listed below. No idea how to fix it. DuncanHill (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Someone put a long citation in the text instead of linking to the Philpott reference, which overrode it. Keith-264 (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Historiography (sic)

Why is a word that means "the philosophy of the study of history" being used as a header for a section on the verdicts on the battle? It's the history of the histories of the battle, which isn't a philosophical inquiry. Keith-264 (talk) 11:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)