Introduction
World War I was the first major international conflict of the twentieth century. Historians describe the battle, which took place on the French Somme River, as the bloodiest in military history. The reports speak of colossal casualties as the number of dead, wounded, and captured soldiers of all warring parties exceeded one million people. The battle on the banks of the Somme was fought from mid-summer to the end of late November 1916.
World War I developments such as this brought together even those states that had been enraged for centuries. Britain, France, Italy, Russia, and England opposed the German Empire, with British troops playing a key role during the war. Thus, the primary information about the Battle of the Somme indicates that the losses of the British army were extensive, but it was not a needless slaughter.
Background
France and Great Britain’s fight against the German Empire on the Somme River was the largest battle of the First World War. It lasted for six months and claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, which automatically turned the months-long battle into one of the bloodiest armed confrontations in the history of human civilization. During the First World War, on July 1, 1916, the Anglo-French offensive against German positions near the Somme River in Picardy began.
However, at the cost of the lives and health of almost a million people, the Entente’s strategic plan was not realized in more than three months of fighting. A company of the 10th Grimsby Chums began fighting for the blasted mine crater, while on the other side, troops used machine guns to break the line of foot soldiers of the Anglo-French troops. It was later called one of the bloodiest and most uncompromising battles of the First World War. It was called to break through the German defense and lasted four and a half months.
To this day, the Battle of the Somme remains one of the darkest and most disturbing pages in the history of the British Army. Although there were five battles on the Somme River in 1914 and 1916 and two in 1918 and 1940, the scale of the 1916 battle struck society most impressively. The reason for this was that during this battle, Britain had no apparent advantages to fight, except for desperate young people who were ready to give their lives for the success of their troops. One of the reasons for the unsuccessful and sometimes inept offensive of the British army was that it was mainly composed of volunteers whom the state failed to properly train for battles with the well-trained soldiers of the Kaiser.
The British also lagged far behind the French in their ability to create a shaft of artillery fire and respond quickly to enemy artillery. The situation was the same for the enemies and other allies, as the powers concentrated their offensive efforts on the Somme River. The three significant empires and their three armies lost many people in defense and offensive operations on the Somme River. It is significant to mention that the three empires spared neither forces nor means to win, so they made this battle central.
Narratives by Historians and Politicians
Accordingly, the scale of the battles on the Somme River was enormous, as it was a global event that affected the lives of every citizen of Western Europe and resonated beyond European banks. Troops fought the battle from 25 nations and five continents. Walter Page wrote that people believed in victory and were motivated to liberate lands from enemies, defend besieged empires, and destroy militarism. Correspondingly, this fact emphasized the bloody nature of the war on the Somme River when troops were ready to fight the last soldier.
Moreover, the rear of the empires also activated its resources to support the battle. The economies and industries of the three empires were also depleting their resources to support the battle. As of the summer of 1916, the list of casualties was unusually long, which did not correlate with the land occupied. This suggests that the battle on the Somme River was a struggle for culture, reputation, and the future, and thus the value of human life was leveled. Several million people took part in and witnessed the extent of the Somme war, many of whom died on the battlefield. At the same time, the survivors did not want to share their war stories and disturb their psyche by recalling losses and death.
Winston Churchill published chronicles of the war, although he did not take part in it, was not a member of parliament, and was not responsible for the course of the battle. Churchill’s story of 1927 was based on criticism of the conduct of the battle on the Somme River. The main reasons for the protracted battle, which led to the death of many people, Churchill attributed to a lack of imagination and callous generals, poorly planned and futile offensive operations, which caused significant and unnecessary losses.
Moreover, there were terrible conditions on the battlefield and technophobic soldiers who did not appreciate the potential of the new weapons that won the war, such as the tank. Thus, Churchill set the agenda for how future generations would perceive the battle of the Somme, and the war became a defining and pivotal event. Churchill’s description and analysis of the battle allow one to argue that it was a needless slaughter.
It is worth noting that Churchill and the politician’s followers ignored the following points due to a lack of understanding of the importance of the Battle of the Somme. Churchill was not a participant in World War I and did not fully understand the significance of the Battle of the Somme. Therefore, Churchill missed the moment of military skill, strength of purpose, and moral courage necessary to fight and win such a battle and such a war: a battle and a war of attrition. This leaves open and debatable the topic of the appropriateness of the losses at the battle of Somme and that the bloody massacre was necessary to protect the Allied powers. Although Basil Liddell Hart, who participated in the Battle of the Somme, also published a book describing narratives similar to those of Churchill.
The military writer was disappointed with senior officers and criticized the army’s failures in the Great War and Britain’s continental strategy in general. This again confirms that the losses on the Somme River were significant and unjustified, and opponents of this opinion could not refer to the author’s lack of fundamental understanding of the battle. Thus, the legacy of Churchill and Liddell Hart describes a catastrophic first day and the shortcomings of the high command. Although describing the bravery of the ordinary soldier, Hart notes the use or misuse of the tank. They mainly relied on the experience of the British Empire, and the role of both the ally and the enemy received little recognition.
However, to prove whether the Battle of the Somme was a bloodbath and whether its outcome was won because of the cold-bloodedness of politicians and the lack of value for human life, it is necessary to provide basic figures. The army suffered the most significant losses on the first day, namely 57,470 casualties, of which 19,240 were killed or died of wounds. Thus, this again confirms that inexperienced and partially trained forces with insufficient artillery support had ambitious goals. Tactical techniques improved over the next 140 days of fighting, and losses proportionally decreased. Although, this does not change the fact that millions of people were killed and became bloody victims of the war.
Losses of the Other Armies
Two additional forces fought the battle of the Somme. To understand the fight, it is essential to consider the roles and experiences of France and Germany alongside those of the British. The Somme was an Anglo-French offensive carried out by both French and British troops in roughly equal numbers, led by the French overall. French casualties totaled about two hundred thousand: this is almost half of the British figure, and few historical chronicles have been written about French losses.
Moreover, the Battle of the Somme was another disappointment for France because the offensive was conceived as a salvation from the losses at Verdun in February. During the planning and preparation of the 1916 campaign, French commander-in-chief General Joseph Joffre envisioned a massive offensive that would break the German trenches and drive the enemy out of occupied France. In the 1916 campaign, it became clear that these plans could not be realized because of the military circumstances on the Western Front in 1916. The French army also faced problems of insufficient human resources reserves and insufficient ammunition, which led to significant losses. Nevertheless, national and international imperatives meant that the offensive had to continue.
Accordingly, the French army’s lack of training contributed to many casualties in the Battle of the Somme. Due to the failure of the British in the north, the French army’s contribution to the offensive increased, requiring more soldiers and resources. It is worth noting that in this battle, the French army advanced and inflicted significant losses on the German side. However, the French did not obtain obvious signs of victory, such as capturing a city or a river crossing. Thus, the heavy losses of the unprepared army and the constant assaults on German positions affected the army’s morale. Moreover, the bloody massacre of French soldiers caused a split in French society, which led to a rethinking of the policy and tactics of warfare.
In addition, the German army’s losses in the Battle of the Somme were so significant that they influenced their decision to start negotiations. According to the plans of German commanders, hundreds of thousands of people were to die defending this bend in the river. In addition to the growing losses at Verdun, the German army had suffered more than one million irreparable losses on the Western Front by the end of the year.
For Germany, which initially had significant successes, the battle on the Somme River gave a new perspective on the war. It made it clear that it was impossible to contain the enemy. As a result of the battle, the German army was reduced due to significant casualties, and the soldiers who remained near the river suffered from cold, lack of resources, and were utterly exhausted.
Representation of the Battle in Fiction
Due to the significant losses in the battle of the Somme, many works of fiction have been written to reflect the public mood and analyze the significant gains and losses. For example, in the 1990s, The Road of Ghosts was written, which allowed modern readers to plunge into 1916. In the last horrifying scene, Lieutenant Hallett, a former public schoolboy, the son of a staff officer, dies in Rivers’ hospital room with half a broken face. In his dying agony, he repeatedly shouts “shotvarfet,” which can be understood as “it is not worth it.”
Moreover, all the wounded soldiers who heard this cry repeated it, which indicates that the combatants were massively dissatisfied with their situation. Also, the BBC drama depicted the Gallipoli campaign in the movie All the King’s Men. The main point of the film was based on the incompetence of the commander, who killed many soldiers to conduct successful offensives.
It should also be noted that many television series and films were made that supported the idea of a cruel and bloody war. Corelli Barnett, head writer of the BBC series The Great War in 1964, notes that most literary works missed the importance of the Battle of the Somme. Their authors focused primarily on human losses and the lack of profound achievements but did not consider the very nature of the war.
Additionally, the series of films was not always based on historical facts, and the invited historians did not have the opportunity to adequately cover the theaters of war, except for the Western Front, to create a holistic picture of the war. Thus, literature and cinema have created the impression that the Battle of the Somme and the events of World War I are focused on describing a lost generation and devastation rather than the significance of the Allied victory.
Moreover, the images or descriptions in the books about contusions, injuries, amputations, and the destruction of war graves created the effect of mindless and unjustified deaths that could have been avoided. Thus, in the context of literature and films, the public’s impression of needless slaughter is shaped. In addition, moderns do not pay attention to the broader problems that caused and influenced the course of the battle on the Somme River and its outcome. For months, the French suffered heavy losses in Verdun, east of Paris. Therefore, the Supreme Command of the Allies decided to divert the attention of the Germans by attacking them in the north near the Somme.
The operation on the Somme became typical for the position of World War I. About 3 million people, about 10,000 guns, and about 2,000 planes took part from both sides. During combat actions, chemical weapons were used several times. Despite losing substantial material resources, the German front was only pushed in about 40 kilometers to a depth of 5-15 kilometers. The vast losses undermined the morale of the troops on both sides.
The Germans were forced to stop their attacks at Verdun. The British lost 453 thousand people, the French lost 341 thousand, and the losses of German troops amounted to 538 thousand persons. As a result of the breakthrough of the Austro-German front in 1916 by Russian troops on the South-Western Front and the offensive on the Somme, the strategic initiative in the war in 1916 passed from the German Union to the Entente.
Thus, the battle of the Somme became a turning point in the war, and its result changed the course of the war. In addition, the Battle of the Somme was the first battle experience for the new volunteer armies. They suffered catastrophic losses, and entire units were destroyed. For weeks afterward, local newspapers were filled with lists of dead and wounded. Consequently, the public began to think that such losses were unjustified and realized that the same result could have been achieved in other ways.
At the same time, there was a debate in British society about the justification for executing soldiers during World War I. It was because most of the executed or convicted soldiers received their sentences. After all, they had participated in desertion or refused to obey orders. In this case, public opinion was also divided, as articles began to appear in the press describing the inhumane living conditions of soldiers, such as rats in the trenches, lack of food, cold, and other factors. Their opponents argued this was not a reason to retreat or disobey orders. Accordingly, it is not a wise idea to grant pardons to the executed soldiers now, as their sentences were justified by the necessity of wartime and maintaining discipline in the army.
Accordingly, the main weakness of almost all literary interpretations of the war is that they focus on the horrific circumstances without considering the actual political and military situation of the time. Therefore, the authors overlook the importance of the policies and strategies of warfare that were created and do not consider what realistic alternatives the Entente forces could have used. Instead, they chose a simpler view of the battle on the Somme River: to use the terms pointless and useless in the context of war.
Therefore, the political and military situation and the rationale for those actions were leveled entirely in the literary environment. Still, a detailed depiction of the destruction and significant casualties was provided. Moreover, such literary works and series became part of the school curriculum and shaped students’ perceptions of the Somme battle.
Correspondingly, the campaigns that existed in newspapers, movies, and literature once again emphasized the unjustified losses, the deaths of thousands of soldiers, and other horrors of war. They accused officers, regimental commanders, and other field commanders of unprofessionalism. Nevertheless, these literary works did not offer alternatives for changing the war’s course so the number of victims would be lower. The authors continued to tell the story of Britain’s mistake in the Battle of the Somme, which led to a stalemate in the war.
It is worth noting that Holmes supported most historians’ arguments, which were since Britain took on the brunt of combat operations in a large theater against a first-class enemy for the only time in its history. This means that there was no obvious alternative to exhaustion and heavy losses. That is why, despite the high human losses and poor living conditions, the British army has never achieved more significant results in an offensive than in the Battle of the Somme. Thus, historians agree that the losses of the British army were extraordinarily high but justified.
Conclusion
In summary, the basic data on the battle and the opinions of historians indicate that the British casualties were significant, but it was not a meaningless massacre. Notably, the entire British offensive was relatively unsuccessful from the first day. The main military forces of the army did not have enough experience in military operations. Even though the Allied forces failed to defeat the Germans, the Somme operation was crucial for further developing hostilities during World War I.
The offensives of the British and French armies significantly weakened the troops of the German Empire. In the literature, the Battle of the Somme is described as a bloody and inexpedient campaign that destroyed an entire generation of people. More than three million people took part in the battle, and one million people were wounded or killed, making it one of the deadliest battles in human history.
Instead, historians point out that British losses during the battle were among the greatest in the British people’s history, but they could not be reduced. Britain’s political situation and fundamental forces did not allow the state to prepare better for wars. Thus, the losses during the battle of the Somme were extremely high, but the battle changed the course of the war, and therefore, the battle cannot be called needless slaughter.
Bibliography
William, Philpott, Bloody Victory: The Sacrifice on The Somme and The Making of The Twentieth Century. (New York: Abacus, 2016).
Bond, Brian. The Unquiet Western Front: Britain’s role in Literature and History. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).