"Ghost" Soldiers of the Somme

Laurie

Senior Member
Location
Kingdom of Fife
As part of the 100 year commemoration of the Battle of the Somme parties of volunteers dressed in WW1 uniforms were positioned at various place round the UK.

I only saw the photographs

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-36682140

but I fond them intensely moving.

Perhaps not widely reported in the US, but I thought the members of this forum might find it of interest.
 

Yes, I watched it on TV. It was brilliantly done and extremely moving. The young men who took part, played their parts perfectly, looking for all the world like young anxious soldiers not knowing what awaited them.
 
Such senseless waste of young lives must never be forgotten, and hopefully, never repeated.
The visual representation is a brilliant way to commemorate these half remembered battles.

Australia had our most disastrous night on the Somme on July 16, 1916.

(Writes author Peter Fitzsimons) "In a fortnight I will be heading to France to attend the centenary of the most appalling night in Australian history.

In the early evening of July 19, 1916, while still broad daylight, no fewer than 7000 Diggers – bravely following an insane plan – were sent forward at Fromelles​, across as much as 400 yards of open ground straight at German machine-guns, which cut them to pieces and continued to do so for the next 14 hours.

By the following morning we had 5500 casualties, of whom 1900 were killed.

1467426823548.jpg

The body of an Australian soldier killed in fighting near Battle of Fromelles on July 19 and 20 in 1916. Photo: Australian War Memorial, A01566

Three days later, the Battle of Pozieres started, where, over the next six weeks, we had nearly 7000 killed. Gallipoli, in comparison – all the veterans agreed – was a picnic.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/the-most-appalling-night-in-australian-history-20160701-gpwhr6.html
 

As part of the 100 year commemoration of the Battle of the Somme parties of volunteers dressed in WW1 uniforms were positioned at various place round the UK.

I only saw the photographs

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-36682140


but I fond them intensely moving.

Perhaps not widely reported in the US, but I thought the members of this forum might find it of interest.

I find this fascinating. I had not heard of this commemoration before and thank you for posting about it. There is something "out of time" or "otherworldly" about it that is quite moving.

I'm a history buff, but I am more well versed in WWII and the American Civil War. I must admit I don't know enough about this particular battle. I'm going to do some research into it as a result of this post.

Interestingly enough, re-enactments and commemorations of the Battle of Gettysburg from our Civil War are also ongoing now, as it is the anniversary of the 3 day battle, but I don't think anything like the ghost soldiers has been done here.

Most interesting Thank you.
 
Dough Boys.jpg
Doughboys! My maternal grandfather is second from left. No idea exactly when this was taken. They all seem to be happy about having a loaf of bread
 
As part of the 100 year commemoration of the Battle of the Somme parties of volunteers dressed in WW1 uniforms were positioned at various place round the UK.

I only saw the photographs

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-36682140

but I fond them intensely moving.

Perhaps not widely reported in the US, but I thought the members of this forum might find it of interest.

I have only seen the photos also but have to agree it was very moving.
 
The scale cannot really be imagined.

The Somme memorial at Thiepval lists the names of 72,000. These are not the dead, but just the missing, those blown to bits or buried deep in the mud, just in this one battle.

72,000 missing in just one battle.
 
Today at lunch this battle came up in conversation, along with that of poet Alan Seeger. Just thought I'd add this, FWIW.

Alan Seeger
(22 June 1888 4 July 1916) was an American poet who fought and died in World War I during the Battle of Somme serving in the French Foreign Legion. Seeger was the uncle of American folk singer Pete Seeger, and was a classmate of T.S. Eliot at Harvard. He was killed in action at Belloy-en-Santerre on July 4, 1916, after being hit several times by machine gun fire.

He is most well known for having authored the poem, I Have a Rendezvous with Death, a favorite of President John F. Kennedy.

 
I have a rendezvous with Death
Alan Seeger

I have a rendezvous with Death
At some disputed barricade,
When Spring comes back with rustling shade
And apple-blossoms fill the air
I have a rendezvous with Death
When Spring brings back blue days and fair.

It may be he shall take my hand
And lead me into his dark land
And close my eyes and quench my breath
It may be I shall pass him still.
I have a rendezvous with Death
On some scarred slope of battered hill,
When Spring comes round again this year
And the first meadow-flowers appear.

God knows ’twere better to be deep
Pillowed in silk and scented down,
Where Love throbs out in blissful sleep,
Pulse nigh to pulse, and breath to breath,
Where hushed awakenings are dear…
But I’ve a rendezvous with Death
At midnight in some flaming town,
When Spring trips north again this year,
And I to my pledged word am true,
I shall not fail that rendezvous.
 
 
Thank you for posting this. Very well done commemoration. I have a number of books on the Somme along with Verdun and Passchendaele. Surely the most horrific experiences any men ever had to face and for the least reason. If only every soldier including their officers had joined that Christmas truce and said "No. We're not doing this any more!" I know. Silly thought. What a tragedy. Honor to the dead.
 
I can't believe how allied troops were ordered to charge across open ground straight into machinegun fire. They did it time and time again. Why?

For the same reason, whatever it was, that Confederate soldiers under George Pickett charged across upon ground and uphill into heavy artillery fire and almost certain death at Gettysburg on July 3, 1863.
 
For the same reason, whatever it was, that Confederate soldiers under George Pickett charged across upon ground and uphill into heavy artillery fire and almost certain death at Gettysburg on July 3, 1863.

The American Civil War saw this kind of slaughter on more than on occasion and WW I was indeed characterised by high command that saw human lives as disposable and replaceable. Refusal to die when ordered was punishable by firing squad.
 
Initially, in both cases, the commanders were fighting the last war. They did not understand the vast increase in destructive power of the new weapons. At the Somme, they assumed the Germans would be totally wiped out by the artillery barrage and mines. What is unforgivable, is that they continued to order attack after attack in the same manner after witnessing the result.
 
What is unforgivable, is that they continued to order attack after attack in the same manner after witnessing the result.

How true, but we did have one general who was an intelligent commander. His name is John Monash and he is something of a legend in Australia.

John Monash is considered one of the war’s outstanding commanders. Monash was born in Melbourne on 27 June 1865. He was dux of Scotch College and studied arts and engineering at Melbourne University, where he was also involved in debating and student politics. Outside of university he dabbled in acting. In 1884 he joined the university company of the 4th Battalion, Victorian Rifles.

Monash was a driven young man, ambitious and intelligent. He worked on the construction of the Princes Bridge in Melbourne and in 1888 was placed in charge of constructing a new railway even though he had yet to complete his degree. Monash married Hannah Moss in April 1891, finished his studies in 1895 and, having long since decided to combine engineering with a military career, was promoted to captain in the Garrison Artillery that year. In 1897 Monash was promoted to major in the North Melbourne Battery and served there for 11 years.

Meanwhile, he and a friend had established a private engineering practice in 1894. The business grew steadily but a series of setbacks left him with large debts in 1902. Starting again, Monash recovered and his business prospered. He also gained promotion to lieutenant colonel in the Australian Intelligence Corps in 1908 in 1913 took command of the 13th Infantry Brigade.

After the outbreak of war, Monash was given command of the AIF's 4th Infantry Brigade, landing at Gallipoli on 26 April 1915. In July he was promoted to brigadier. Despite having encountered some criticism for his performance on Gallipoli, Monash took his brigade to France in June 1916. He became a major general in July and took command of the 3rd Division. The division's first major battle, Messines, was hailed as a great success. Further success followed and in May 1918, Monash was promoted to lieutenant general and given command of the Australian Corps. His first battle in this role, Hamel, of which he wrote: "the operation is a striking example of the success which invariably results from careful preparation and coordinated action: and will serve as a model and the standard of the fighting efficiency of the Australian corps". Monash remained in command through the victorious battles in the last months of the war. He was an innovative leader who earned high praise from many leading political and military figures.

https://www.awm.gov.au/people/P10676516/

More here:
He joined Melbourne University's Metropolitan Brigade of the Garrison Artillery, and until the outbreak of war in 1914, he worked at learning the skills of artillery and engineering, as well as teaching and designing. By 1914, he was in command of the AIF's 4th Brigade in Egypt, where, like most Australian troops, he experienced the disastrous effects of bad organisation and planning, and poor command decisions. It was to be in France in 1918 that Monash would truly make his mark.After moving to the Western Front in 1916, Monash was promoted to Major General and took command of the 3rd Division. In the years leading to 1918, he and his troops were involved in many confrontations, including the Battles of Messines, the third battle of Ypres, and Polygon Wood, with some successes.

In May 1918, Monash was appointed corps commander of the Australian forces, and in that year he led some significant attacks by Australian troops in the final stages of the war. Monash's troops were involved in helping to stem the March German offensive. But it was during the battle at Hamel that Monash really secured his reputation. Monash's skilful planning and attention to detail resulted in a triumphant attack and capture of the town by Australian and American troops. This was the beginning of a series of successful campaigns by Australians that continued until their last battle in October.

Monash wanted to move away from what he considered to be outdated British tactics, believing that
the true role of infantry was not to expend itself upon heroic physical effort, not to wither away under merciless machine-gun fire, not to impale itself on hostile bayonets, but on the contrary, to advance under the maximum possible protection of the maximum possible array of mechanical resources, in the form of guns, machine-guns, tanks, mortars and aeroplanes; to advance with as little impediment as possible; to be relieved as far as possible of the obligation to fight their way forward.
He supported the view that the most effective warfare involved many different types of weaponry and defences working together- the whole being greater than the sum of its parts.
Monash was also a brilliant tactician. For example, he was renowned for the idea of bombarding German lines with gas and smoke shells together for a few days prior to an attack, so that the Germans were conditioned to associate the gas with the smoke. However, on the day of an attack, only smoke shells would be fired. This not only provided a smokescreen for the advancing troops, but it also caused the Germans to put their gas masks on automatically, which distracted them and caused confusion, impairing their visibility and communication.
The main thing is always to have a plan; if it is not the best plan, it is at least better than no plan at all.
Known as a meticulous planner, Monash held conferences with his officers before operations to generate ideas, to elucidate any problem areas, and to make sure that all involved were fully versed and familiar with the plan.https://www.awm.gov.au/exhibitions/1918/people/genmonash/

General Sir John Monash.JPG
 
And, sadly, we didn't learn a damn thing from it...

Of course we did.

We learnt that surface burst shrapnel shells are useless for breaching properly laid wire and you should use bangalore torpedoes, and these same surface burst shells are useless against a well dg deep trench system manned by seasoned troops who've had months to prepare.

We also learned that it is folly to send light infantry against well sited and well served machine guns without armoured support, though this is a lesson which should have already been learnt. Even Wellington and Napoleon wouldn't send infantry in without cavalry support.
 
I can't believe how allied troops were ordered to charge across open ground straight into machinegun fire. They did it time and time again. Why?

Because British commanders though that an intense artillery bombardment would breach the wire and destroy the German trench system, they were wrong, see my other post.

In fact they had limited options . Although much is made of ground gained and lost, in this particular battle a major objective, achieved, was to relieve pressure on the French.

They were being bled white at Verdun (160.000 dead) and it was widely believed that they would not be able to hold until Christmas. Thanks in part to the Somme they held, but at tremendous cost, they effectively lost a whole generation. That is why "Ils ne Passeront Pas" has passed into French legend.
 
I have been watching the Danish TV series "1864 - The Danish War".
It was a territorial dispute between the Danes and the Prussians.
It featured trenches, artillery barrages and muzzle loading rifles with bayonets.
The Prussian leader was Bismarck and the Danes were no match, being out numbered and outgunned.

Still, their leaders were happy to sacrifice one third of the army, believing that that would bring about victory.

It is an excellent series if you don't mind subtitles.
 
Initially, in both cases, the commanders were fighting the last war. They did not understand the vast increase in destructive power of the new weapons. At the Somme, they assumed the Germans would be totally wiped out by the artillery barrage and mines. What is unforgivable, is that they continued to order attack after attack in the same manner after witnessing the result.

Exactly. They were fighting a 20th century war with 19th century tactics. Incredible slaughter.

As a Civil War nut, I stood on the Gettysburg battlefield at the place where Pickett's charge began and looked across that field at the place the Union artillery was set up. The Confederates (three divisions, as I recall) never had a chance. And the unforgivable (to use your word) thing is that Lee had been advised by several of his subordinates that it was a suicidal charge and at least one of them pleaded with him not to give the order, but he gave it anyway. Many, if not most, of the men knew what was coming and many pinned a note with their names and hometown to their uniforms so their bodies could be identified, but they went ahead anyway.

As I stood there, I asked myself if I could have had the courage to do that. It was a question I couldn't answer.
 
"hey were fighting a 20th century war with 19th century tactics. I"

Not strictly true, except insofar as strong points, or fortresses were concerned. I don''t know of any major conflict involving a continuous front line trench system in the 19th century. While was used in your Civil War it was only to a limited degree.

That was the trouble, trench warfare on such a scale was, in fact, new, and no-one had any idea how to defeat it.
 
I'm not so sure about that Laurie.

The Danish/Prussian war depicted in the TV series seemed to have trenches as a Danish defensive line, complete with deep ditches in front of them.

This was 1864. Some research needed perhaps? I'll see what I can find out.
 
I've found some early references to trench warfare.

Trench warfare, in which opposing armed forces attack, counterattack, and defend from relatively permanent systems of trenches dug into the ground. The opposing systems of trenches are usually close to one another. Trench warfare is resorted to when the superior firepower of the defense compels the opposing forces to “dig in” so extensively as to sacrifice their mobility in order to gain protection.

A trench system may begin simply as a collection of foxholes hastily dug by troops using their entrenching tools. These holes may subsequently be deepened so that a soldier can safely stand up in one of them, and the individual foxholes may be connected by shallow crawl trenches. From this beginning a system of more permanent field fortifications may be constructed. In making a trench, soil from the excavation is used to create raised parapets running both in front of and behind the trench. Within the trench are firing positions along a raised forward step called a fire step, and duckboards are placed on the often muddy bottom of the trench to provide secure footing.

Vauban, Sébastien Le Prestre deGiraudon—Art Resource/EB Inc.

The tactical ancestor of modern trench warfare was the system of progressively extended trenches developed by the French military engineer Sébastien Le Prestre de Vauban for the attack of fortresses in the 17th century. Trenches remained merely a part of siegecraft until the increasing firepower of small arms and cannon compelled both sides to make use of trenches in the American Civil War (1861–65). The trench lines of the Petersburg–Richmond theatre of operations in the final months of that war were the foremost example of trench warfare in the 19th century.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/trench-warfare
 
Infantry have bee "digging in" since the invention of the firearm, particularly as a defensive strongpoint, it is,after all, simply a development of the mptte and bailey.

However, a sophisticated entire front line trench system stretching, in this case, from the Swiss border to the North Sea was new.

We tend to think of the trench system as entirely like the primitive mud holes of the Allies, but the German trenches were deep with much overhead protection. They had sleeping quarters, mess halls, bathing facilities and so on.

They required deep penetration weapons, and the only remotely similar weapons available were naval armour piercing shells.

As for 19th century methods, the tank was only a self propelled gabion as used at Talavera and Badajoz!
 
And the Western Front also saw the development of deep tunnels that undermined the positions of the enemy. By both sides.
 


Back
Top