Excellent show! Superb speaker and an excellent chat. I am an American who as a boy delivered newspapers to retired WW1 veterans that fought near the end of the war. They shared some tough stories. I am excited to learn more. Thank you for your efforts.
A great start for WW1TV. Learned a lot courtesy of Mister Sheffield today. Being 58 years old, the majority of my understanding of WW1 is based on the myths and misconceptions of incompetent leadership, senseless sacrifice of soldiers, material, etc. Today alone I learned a lot about the Somme campaign that has opened up my mind & eyes to- dare I say- a "whole new world" of what actually occurred as opposed to what is the popular notion about the Somme and the Great War overall.
There are still many historians who make an excellent case for extremely dubious leadership. Some of the hyperbole of the 1960s was overblown but that does not mean the opposite is true. I am sure the debate will fully play out in coming months and years.
@@lllordllloyd I agree sir. There are times that I keep quiet in voicing my thoughts about something because there might be some research revealing facts that have been overlooked or ignored for decades that I am unaware of.
@@jimaltergott9326 No offense to you, nor criticism of you, intended. History is a debate and Professor Sheffield is an essential source. He eloquently and with sound reasoning lays out the case for Haig and the high command. I first studied the Great War at school in the 1980s and was strongly influenced by John Terraine. My opinions of have changed over the years but they remain just my opinions... albeit with (I hope) a lot more evidence behind them. Facilitiating historical debate in long form is what makes the WW2TV so brilliant... and now we have the Great War version. I am certain all sides will be aired. We are in for a great time and Lucy will be a wonderful facilitator.
@@joeywheelerii9136 I think it was French general Mangin who said (paraphrasing): "Win or lose, we take a lot of casualties". It's probably easier to stomach 40,000 casualties when you have overrun the entire defensive system, though.
I don’t think you fine folk could have had a better “first” show. Absolutely brilliant - riveted from beginning to end & was disappointed it ended! Smashing it Lucy & so beyond happy you have a platform like this. As for you Woody…love everything you have a hand in mate. Going to enjoy the hell out of this ride guys 🤘
Way to hit out of the park or for you footballers (Woody) ...Goooaaalll! Great first show Lucy and Gary. Lot's of great information, new ways of looking at how WW1 was fought. Highly recommend it to folks curious about WW1.
Yay! This is a great format for learning. The Q & A allows for the hosts and the sidebar chatters to ask questions, while a novice like me, sits back in awe. Thanks Gary for your dedication as a WWI historian, and thanks Lucy and Woody, for bringing this channel to life. Proud to be a Patreon supporter.
The reputation of the Somme campaign will always be blighted by that terrible first day. The popular view. Lions led by Donkeys is too simplistic. The problem for Haig was that Britain had a huge Army that had grown almost overnight. There was a shortage of experienced officers at all levels and they had to learn on the job and many would be casualties within days. I began to disbelieve the major myths a good while back. Philpot's book Bloody Victory certainly helped to bring my thinking in line with your learned guest. Indeed. It wasn't Haig's plan to have the entire attacking forces just walk through no man's land with the assumption that the 7 day bombardment would've finished off the German defenders. As was stated. Many of the units south of the Albert Road did pretty well on July 1st. Individual commanders had been allowed to make their own decisions and prepared their men well. Some had ordered Saps to be dug towards the German line during the bombardment and the men in many cases were closer to the enemy trenches waiting in those saps during the last hour of the artillery bombardment. Other officers had ordered their men to crawl forward into no man's land before the attack and wait for the whistles. In such cases. The British won the race to the parapet and captured the German front trenches quickly. Unfortunately. The British had not quite mastered the French concept of bite and hold and by evening The gains of the morning were lost. A relative of mine was in the 1st Bttn East Surrey's a veteran of 2nd Ypres and was held in reserve until August where they were sent to 29th Division. He was there for the first employment of the Tank during the Flers Courcellette offensive and the capture of Morval. Haig actually sent a commendation to his and other units who'd participated in this successful phase of the battle. Shortly afterwards he was wounded by a trench mortar and woke up on a Hospital ship bound for Liverpool. He'd been born in Shoreditch East London in 1893 and had reached the rank of Sgt by 1916. He was a bit of a boy. It turned out he'd left his first Wife and married a French woman and fathered a child when he was 40 in 1933. He lived until the mid 1970s. Anyway. One of the problems for British offensives on this unprecedented scale was communication and command lacked the flexibility to reinforce success. On day one and this meant huge casualties when more men were fed into battle where the German defenses were still active. ie. They were reinforcing failure by sticking to a pre planned timetable. Excellent presentation.
It's interesting to compare the Somme offensive with the German Spring offensive of 1918. Few people criticise Ludendorf as much as Haig, yet despite two additional years of learning and development, the Germans still lose comparable numbers without achieving their strategic aims.
What a great show, I learned so much. I do love the fact that historians continue to look for information that will give us better insight into these events. I am loving this channel ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Crazy to think that at the same time the Battle of Verdun and the Brusilov offensive are raging. Imagine being a German replacement in Mid Summer 1916. It doesnt matter where you are going you know regardless its straight to a massive battle.
Gary Sheffield is an excellent guest! Great to hear this discussion about the first day and the larger Battle of the Somme. It's also great to hear Gary is starting a podcast. I look forward to it.
Superlative! This presentation with the astute observations of three great historians, Professor Sheffield, Paul, Lucy has illuminated so many facts about this pivotal battle of WWI. Two things stood out to me: Logistics and the parallels to the battles in Normandy in WWII. Ecclesiastes 1:9 proclaims "There is no new thing under the sun." The way in which the German Army almost always would counterattack to retake a position was very predictable. It often resulted in the attrition that General Haig predicted in his "Plan B" outcomes in his planning. Fascinating analogy.
Great to see and hear you both Gary and Lucy, most enjoyable. I wrote my dissertation on the successes of XIII Corps Artillery on 1st July. Certainly the landscape and the involvement of French Artillery made a difference, but the forward thinking of the British commanders of that Corps (and XV Corps to their left), was one of the key beginnings of the learning processes of the remainder of the War. Watch out for an upcoming article for WFA on the subject!! Good luck moving forward.
@@WW1TVchannel the First World War is not as familiar with me either Paul; I'm more of a Second World War and Napoleonic Wars student. I hope guests like Dr Phillip Blood will make an appearance. Thanks Paul and Lucy.
I am glad that Gary mentioned, all be it in passing, the role of air power in the battle. It is probably worth pointing out that the RFC achieved a degree of air superiority during the course of the battle, though as he notes the introduction of new types by the Germans towards the end of the battle, such as the Albatros scouts saw it begin to shift in their favour. As well as artillery spotting the RFC carried out photography work which allowed the trench maps to be created, general observation/ reconnaissance and contact patrols as well as night bombing behind the enemy lines. The RFC also had its own highly effective logistics support system which in turn helped support the tanks that first appeared at Flers-Courcelette. I would recommend anyone interested in the subject get hold of a copy of Somme Success by Peter Hart. I well remember the excellent presentation that he gave to the London Branch of what was then the Cross & Cockade Society (now the uninspiringly named Great War Aviation Society 🤦), though not to the liking of some of our older members present, when the book came out in 2001.
We’ve got a show coming up soon with David Spruce on the RFC (and a separate show with Peter Hart as it goes!). One of my relatives (Gerald Alan Morris O.B.E.) helped develop the science of the interpretation of aerial photographs during the First World War, and I work in vintage aviation so it’s a particularly fascinating area for me. Easy to get addicted to airpower history for sure! - LBD.
@@WW1TVchannelHi Lucy, yes I have noted the upcoming talks, very much looking forward to them. I also remember you saying in the first video that you worked in vintage aviation for the day job 🙂. I actually emailed Nicole Greenslade, who is the Social Media coordinator for The Great War Aviation Society with reference to your channel, though I have yet to hear back from her. The Society, as well as producing a quarterly magazine, has published a number of books, most recently on the DH 2, which was overseen by Trevor Henshaw who in his own right authored "The Sky Their Battlefield" (and an updated TSTB II) which is an invaluable resource if you are researching British, Commonwealth and American aviation activities on a daily basis. The Society president, Peter Dye, has written a book on the logistics of the RFC/RAF in WW1, "The Bridge to Air Power" and I know logistics is something that you are interested in. So perhaps there might be something of interest there for future talks, All the best, Mark Ps interesting to read about your ancestor, a great uncle of mine was an Observer on 48 Sqn, who was, along with his various pilots, involved in a number of successful engagements, 2nd Lt. T.C.S. Tuffield. (Known as Cecil to the family as IIRC, he shared his first name of Thomas with his father).
If you're aim is to bring someone over from WW II TV to WW I TV, consider that as a job done for me. I admit to having a basic knowledge of WW I, but if this is an example of what's to come, I can't wait for more! I learned more about the Battle of the Somme here than in school for sure (I'm in Michigan). Military History Plus? I'm looking forward to that podcast for sure Gary! To Lucy, I think you did a great job with this first presentation episode of WW I TV. I did love the battlefield tours you did earlier, I hope to see them myself one day. And to you Paul, thanks for your guiding hand on this episode, it feels like WW II TV but twenty odd years earlier. However, I think Lucy will be will be flying solo soon, and knocking down myths left and right about WW I, and I can't wait to learn about it! Hopefully there might be a presentation about Lawrence of Arabia to come. He seems to me like like the LRDG and SAS all rolled into one, only ahead of his time. Thanks for this new channel!!
Thank you, Gary, Lucy and Paul! That was a great talk and discussion, and wonderfully well-balanced. I must confess that I am originally - now aged 60 - from a generation that found the Allan Clarke 'Lions led by Donkeys' trope all too easy to accept uncritically. To a greatly reduced extent, and mainly on a residual gut-level, I still feel there is some evidence of thoughtlessness and incompetence, but I do accept that that has more to do with the inexperience of, and 'friction'/bad luck within, this whole new scale of warfare at operational level. Although that statement to a great extent could apply to all Commanders, at almost every level, and in EVERY army that was engaged in WWI! For the BEF, the 'learning curve' was steep, and certainly didn't come cheap. But learn they most definitely did. They were certainly not stupid men, after all. The more recent concentration, over the last few years, on the responses to the resultant positional warfare occasioned by this dreadful, exponential escalation in lethality, both in the training at tactical level and in the logistical mastery ultimately shown at operational level has been a real eye-opener. In addition to the contributions made by many other, more recent, historians - Gary is definitely one such! - the work of the sadly, recently deceased Rob Thompson made for a fascinating exposition on those much-maligned and too often neglected, by enthusiasts at least, fields of staff work, planning and logistics. Thanks again, it was very good, that!
I miss Rob very much, both personally and professionally. He made logistics inspiring and fun, whilst at the same time breaking new ground on our understanding of the subject during the war, we are all the poorer for his passing. - LBD
Yes, indeed. My sentiments exactly. Although I never met him, we did have some irl mutual friends who commented on certain egregious similarities in some of our interests and attitudes! A sad loss on many levels.
Excellent first program. Apologies for missing, was enjoying a birthday meal. Wasn't the first Somme campaign somewhat forced on Haig by French high command, in an attempt to divert German troops from Verdun, and, that as stated the British forces were not 'battle ready' at this stage?
It was planned before Verdun, though as was stated originally the British were to play a smaller role in the Battle than they did, specifically because of Verdun. So its a mixture of yes and no, it had been decided in the winter before Verdun started that a major offensive would take place on the Somme, but because of Verdun the British involvement increased, and French involvement decreased. In addition the French by June of 1916 were desperate for something to take at least some of the pressure off the Verdun sector, so while I do not think it was the major factor behind the Somme being fought it was still something that was taken into account.
Got to consider that the battle did not end on the 18th November ... I know the British think it does, but 2,600 French died and over 10,000 wounded during 29 days of extra fighting. The end was actually 17th December 1916, and it was actually going to go on longer, but Nivelle called it off, before an attack planned for the 20th December.
Even in the UK the end date is a nebulous thing. Its not really set in stone because as you said, there was still fighting after the 'end' of the battle. So its not so much a case that we 'think' it ended when it did, but its a convenient end date for the majority of the heavy fighting that typified the Somme battle, even if it did not wind down fully for another month.
37:15 yeh you hardly hear about the Battle of the Somme in Australia we tend to call it the battle of Poziēres . The Australian divisions had the advantage of experience of Gallipoli , although the amount of artillery was new to us .
I truly hope that you, our some other Australian will do a presentation about the Australian contribution to WW1. I appreciate your views Matthew Kelly.
Both of my grandfathers joined up before the war and survived it. One was in the RHA, the other the KRRC. I need to do some more research to see if they participated in the Battle of the Somme.
My grandfather served in the US Army during WW1. He used to tell a story that illustrated the state of race relations in America at that time. He was up on deck of a troop ship pulling submarine watch during very rough seas. When he was relieved, he went down below decks to the area where the Black soldiers were quartered (the army being segregated in those days). He saw one soldier there who was miserably seasick, went to him and asked him how he was doing. The man replied, "Seargent, until they build a railroad across this ocean, I'm gonna be a black Frenchman!"
Without commenting on race-relations, that comment sounds more like a declaration that the Private would rather remain in France than face a return voyage across the Atlantic
Just want to point out that the vessel that was used for the ROV was a fairly typical offshore support vessel. Many offshore support vessels are equipped with 2X work class ROVs and one or two heave compensated cranes that could be rated for 300 ton or more. All of these vessels are equipped with dynamic positioning. All of the equipment will be typically rated for the same depth. A 4000 m depth rating is not uncommon. On these vessels, it's normal to be operating both ROVs and one or two cranes.
Driving from our barracks in Germany to Normandy one Friday evening in 1984 shortly after the 40th anniversary of D-Day, a buddy and I found ourselves on the Albert - Bapaume road. Looming on the horizon, we saw a huge red brick tower. Not knowing what it was, we drove toward it. That's how I discovered the Thiepval memorial and learned the story of the Somme.
Sheffield is very much a glass half full kind of guy when it comes to Haig, the Somme and pretty much everything else. He tends to skirt around the awful casualties, continued fighting when it is clear that it should have ended much sooner, unrealistic chances of breakthrough and employment of cavalry etc.
I wanted to add a comment about what most Americans know about WW1. I can speak for myself at least in claiming that I know very little about the subject except for the few books I have read, mostly about the Air and Submarine warfare during the war. I have seen a few documentaries that usually perpetuate the myths. I have seen some films about the war from "Sergeant York" to "Gallipoli." I have recently watched "The Trench" and "1917." While these are brilliant entertainment, non of them has helped me understand this war fully. I am very grateful for the inclusion of WW1TV to help me to learn. I hope we may hear from guests from all the countries that were involved to gain the true picture of this tragic, but necessary war.
An eagle's view of the battle I think. Maybe an ordinary soldier's view is missing because they couldn't or wouldn't talk about it at the time or afterwards. Belfast, I think, was in mourning, and it reduced volunteering in both wars thereafter. Surviving fathers discouraged their sons. There was, I think, a perception of utter waste and loss. But maybe I'm wrong.
As a WW2 comparison, would there have been such success at Cobra without the disaster at Kasserine ? Would there have been success at Arras without the oainful learning at the Somme.
10:30 the only two full democracies on the allied side where Australia and New Zealand .......... The only two countries with full adult franchise for men and women . We defeated conscription twice at referendums in WW1 .
Grandfather was an Australian Artillery officer from the arrival of Australian troops on the Western Front, until the Armistice. I have his war diary. Very dry. Very matter-of-fact.
I don't think it ever is, to be honest. Most military historians I know are driven to study conflict in the hope that we can better understand and thus avoid it, and whether revisionist or not, have the utmost respect for lives lost in war.
Justifying the conflict by claiming that Germany is to blame (either solely or primarily; let alone for world domination) for WWI is absurd. The cause for this holocaust resulted from a number of factors to include 1) Germany facing a two-front threat from the Entente powers (who possessed two of the of the largest armies in Europe), 2) Russia trying to exploit the Serbian crises to expand their influence in the Balkans, and 3) France's desire to avenge their defeat in the Franco-Prussian War. WWI was a fiasco and could have been avoided if the politicians did their job and didn't punt the ball to the militaries almost from the start. Neither France nor Russia were interested in a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
@@WW1TVchannel "It's part of Professor Sheffield's opinion, thus not absurd." Of course it is absurd. Putting "Professor Sheffield says" in front of a sentence doesn´t mean it´s not absurd. What he says is not just absurd it´s complete and utter bs. And even if it would be true why is it a morally bad thing considering the fact that the English by this time already had robbed lands and territories all over the world?
The assertion that the British side was "good", and the German side "bad", really irks me. I am willing to accept that the Germans made a bid for power in WW1, and that the occupation of Belgium and part of France (and presumably Luxembourg) was brutal, but how much better was the British occupation of Greece and Ireland (this is not a rhetorical question, I actually don't know). I think it's worth considering the possibility that Britain was not, in fact, fighting for freedom and democracy, but rather to secure the continuation of its empire, an empire with a violent and brutal history of slavery, dispossession, and forced starvation, amongst other crimes - mainly perpetrated in the service of enabling the accumulation of wealth amongst the British upper class. The war would see the sacrifice to this edifice of mainly lower class soldiers; namely, the people who materially benefited from the empire the least. We should not forget that Britain in 1914 was coming off of a previous war in which it had invented concentration camps for the purposes of suppressing resistance in South Africa, and that British humanity was shown for what it was after the ceasefire, when the naval blockade was maintained until after the Treaty of Versailles was signed, thus needlessly starving Germany for an extra 8 months.
Gosh you are filled with something i'd not like to be filled with. German atrocities began in West Africa by administrators well before 1915. They indulged in ethnic cleansing AKA genocide. You are a denier.
30:17 nearly stepped into it there , Amiens and the 100 days offensive was an Australian and Canadian victory . Be careful I won't accept 'dominion' troops being called British and I will not let the fact we won the war slip lol
No, it was not. Amiens was fought by as many British troops as Canadian. Not to mention the fact that 85% of the 'British' troops fighting on the Western Front were actually British, and the casualties reflect that. So no, Dominion troops did NOT win the war, it was an allied effort. Hell, pretty much all the Canadian and Australian heavy equipment came from Britain, your artillery was virtually all British, more than half the Australian and Canadian Artillery gunners were British. The Stokes mortars, British, the Machineguns, British. Do not even get me started on the British Divisions that had an equal or even better combat success record to the Canadian and Australian Divisions. It was not a Canadian or Australian Division that broke the Hindenburg Line, it was a BRITISH Division that made a contested assault across a canal and smashed through the Line, that Division was 46th Division, which did something that both the Australians and Canadians thought impossible. Indeed their attack was supposed to be to simply pin the enemy in place. Instead they crossed a steep sided canal, under fire, assaulted the German positions, and smashed through them all the while having a fraction of the artillery support the Americans and Australians on their flanks enjoyed.... So no, you did NOT win the war. Neither did you win the 100 days offensive. You helped, but you did not do it all alone. You may grow sick of people 'forgetting' the contribution of Dominion troops, well do you know what I am sick of? People like you belittling the very real achievements and sacrifices of the British. You wonder why we downplay your involvement? Because YOU not only downplay you BELITTLE ours, and in doing so you insult our dead..... And we lost a greater proportion of our pre war population as dead than ANY of the Dominions. In other words the British Casualty rate was HIGHER than yours as a percentage of population....
'The French were leading the way' Really? Always begging the British Army to take over more line then taking 1917 off leaving us to do all the fighting. Give me strength
I'll be honest , bit worried about this channel . Can foresee a heap of Americans thinking they know everything about a war the fought in for like 5 minutes
Don't worry mate. Not many of us know much if anything about the war to make an educated response. I look forward to learning from WW1TV through the excellence of their guests. I hope that you might be a guest one day.
some real pie in the sky stuff...an advance of a few miles might have made the Germans seek peace...an advance of 15 miles would have been theoretically possible...this is daydreaming Mr S.
Well, that’s a view, and one that is certainly popular in historiography of the war from previous decades. I don’t think GS ‘skirts around’ the terrible casualties at all though, in all his work and here he makes pains to say that, so that is unfair to say I think - LBD
What a peculiar thing to say RogerBourke5570. Are you ok? - Mrs Lucy Margot Betteridge-Dyson BEng (hons) MA (Dist) (p.s. I did one take a pole dancing class and it was great fun, recommend it for core work, if you need it Roger)
Historical revisionist and happy tool for Imperialists. Sorry not impressed, and having read his book,The Somme forwarded Richard Holmes, again, verbal gymnastics to re shape a catastrophy
You may not agree but in my view one of the great things about military history is debating interpretations and exploring developments in historiography!
1) My name is Woodadge 2) I'm not the regular host. Lucy will be as we move forward 3) Yes, Normandy is my specialist area, but I've also successfully hosted 700+ shows on WW2TV, less than 10% of which are about Normandy. So, having specialist knowledge in one area does not preclude me from tackling other subjects. Remember, Lucy and I host the shows, it's the guests that bring the real expertise PW
