Talk:Battle of the Somme/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

unlabeled entries

where did it start? which countries fought in this battle? how long did it last? how many casualties were there? how many souldiers were killed? who commanded those to battle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.11.96 (talk) 07:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

This article appears to be written from a thoroughly british viewpoint.68.4.61.113 05:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Still does as of today, it reads like only the Brits were there. 193.132.242.1 13:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Two points. Firstly the article often uses (and is pretty much forced to use) the term "British" as it was used at the time, ie the term includes ANZAC, Canadian and Indian forces etc - because the sources do. If you substitute the word "British" for a modern alternative like "Commonwealth" it is not quite so British in its outlook. Secondly it is hard to get round the systematic bias of the prevalance of British (in the WWI sense) editors on the English version of Wikipedia, particularly on an event that had such a massive impact on the British empire countries. The French and German sides of the story need to be brought up to standard as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LiamE (talk • contribs) 16:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

There are many things in Wikipedia that are crazily biased toward an English point of view. Weird, since it is basically an American web site with offices in California.

I think the Canadian view point is enormously overlooked in this article. It is a disgrace. 75.48.23.82 (talk) 03:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The Canadian viewpoint is well represented considering Canadian loses ammounted to something like one 20th of the allied losses. The French and German POV's need huge work though. --LiamE (talk) 09:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

At that time Canada was British and most of its inhabitants thought so. Carping anbout the absence of an anachronistic label is an insult to them.Keith-264 (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Obscure paragraph

The following paragraph is unnecessarily obscure:

The tactics of tank warfare were understandably in their infancy but Rawlinson made the mistake of leaving gaps in their barrage through which the tanks could operate. As the tanks were directed against defensive strongpoints, the supporting infantry who got ahead of the tanks often faced fresh German garrisons. It was also possibly a tactical error for Rawlinson to distribute his tanks across the front rather than to concentrate them against a single point.

For example,

• "made the mistake" -- It may be a mistake to leave a gap in a barrage. But what is the alternative? How otherwise would you avoid hitting the tanks with your own artillery? This sentence is too vague and speculative. Please give some reason why it was a "mistake."
• "As the tanks were directed against defensive strongpoints . . ." How does being directed against defensive strongpoints affect whether or not the supporting infantry gets ahead of the slow, slow tanks? This sentence is illogical, in my opinion.
• "It was also possibly a tactical error . . ." Is there a "best practices" rule that it is better to 1) concentrate rather than 2) distribute? This sentence is too vague, in my opinion. ---Rednblu | Talk 22:45, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, I was trying to summarise Flers-Courcelette in the main article and would eventually go into detail in the Battle of Flers-Courcelette.

• "gap in the barrage" -- the barrage (should) fall ahead of the attack, not on the attacking infantry and tanks. Leaving the gaps meant that when the tanks failed to arrive, the infantry on these sectors encountered un-bombarded defences. The purpose of the gaps was to leave the ground undisturbed, giving the tanks good going.
• "directed against defensive strongpoints" -- coupled with the gaps in the barrage, the infantry were doubly-damned
• "tactical error" -- at the time there were no best practices. It's a comment on the development of Blitzkrieg tactics when tanks were concentrated in a "Schwerpunkt". "Possibly" may not be a good word but this wasn't really the point to discuss the evolution of tank tactics.

I'll expand on it when I get around to writing the 15 September article. I'm happy to drop this paragraph until then. Geoff/Gsl 23:22, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Great explanations. Great page! Contratulations. ---Rednblu | Talk 00:28, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've dropped the paragraph, replaced with more battle detail. I'll revisit the question of tactics when I do the Flers-Courcelette article when I can do a proper explanation. Thanks for pointing out the problem. Geoff/Gsl 06:28, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

"Lord of the rings" author J. R. R. Tolkien were one of the men present in this battle (this is mentioned on his page). He brought little notebooks and made descriptions of what he called "hell". I believe these battles were his inspiration for the worst scenes in LOTR. How could we incorporate this into the page? --Brandnewbrain 26 Dec 2004

I was just reading for the first time earlier today looking for Tolkien in it as i knew that he had been present in the battle. Perhaps == Noteable persons at Somme == ?, there are bound to be more. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 10:25, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

List of people that were at somme (their articles link to it): J.R.R. Tolkien, Otto Dix, Robert Graves, George Butterworth, Keith Park, John Keiller MacKay, Walter Tull (i only made it that far). -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 10:36, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

Should someone add the 'notable people' heading or has it been decided against? Ka5hmir 10:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Small-scale map in the introduction

Hello. Thanks a lot to the authors of this article -- good work. It is not clear to me where, exactly, in France this battle took place. Can we have a small-scale map (showing all of France or maybe even all of Europe) near the beginning to show the general location? Actually a lot of the military history articles could benefit from small-scale maps to give context. 64.48.193.24 20:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean a "large scale" map. It would be nice to have. Geoff/Gsl 09:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Small location map included into campaignbox Farawayman (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Difference in Number of Casualties

I don't understand why the estimates of German casualties vary so much. If the official documents from germany say it was about 160,000 dead, and the british historian who said 680,000 was discredited then why would they have the estimate go from 180,000 to 680,000?

Casualties include missing, prisoners and wounded, as well as killed in action and died of wounds. The category of "wounded" is particularly hard to quantify. The figure "465,000 to 600,000" comes from Sheffield's The Somme:

"Recent historians have disagreed on the total of German losses. Holger Herwig gives a precise 465,000, while Richard Holmes argues 'it is harder to place them lower than 600,000'."

The official German figure is "about 500,000" for the period starting 1 July so that doesn't include losses during the preliminary bombardment. The figure of 180,000 comes from the British War Office Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire but it doesn't seem anyone, including the statisticians who compiled it, believe it to be accurate. Geoff/Gsl 04:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Discrepancy in Ratio of Casualties

The casualty figures seem indeed biased, especially regarding the relative percentage of the dead and missing as a share of total losses. According to the article, that ratio for the Germans forces would be nearly 38%, as opposed to only about 23.5% for the Anglo-French. Such a great discrepency contradicts the belligerents' official statistics for the Great War, as quoted in World_War_I_casualties: there it is about 30-33% for both sides.

This appears suspicious. Why should the Germans, who were not usually the attackers at the Somme in 1916, have suffered so many more KIA and MIA that the Allies?

Textor 05:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There is of course dispute about casualty figures but do remember that much of battles like the Somme consisted of German counterattacks (it was actually Falkenhayn's policy to try to regain every scrap of ground lost). See Terraine's famous essay "The True Texture of the Somme" (which sadly I don't have to hand) in which he counted about sixty or seventy German counterattacks - many of them doubtless minor but which must have resulted in many German deaths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.40.200.252 (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Prior & Wilson favor the figure of 260,000 German casualties, derived from the figure provided to Churchill after the war by the Reichsarchiv. I think this competing figure bears mention in the article, so I'm adding it. --Thus Blogged Anderson (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

... Okay, I *thought* I was going to change it. There's no way to edit the article -- no "edit" links! What's up with THAT? --Thus Blogged Anderson (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You can edit..... provided you are logged in. Farawayman (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thus Blogged Anderson has only made 4 edits and so is treated the same way as an IP editor i.e. the article is semi-protected. When he/she has made enough edits, then editing of the article will be possible. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Anglo-centric bias

This article smacks of Anglo-centric bias, written by the British, for the British. This needs a more neutral tone. We see the losses of French here were also huge...and of course the German. Not only that, we are told what the British 'back home' thought (but not the French, who lived there). Shame, shame that one would be so self-congratulatory as to give this article plaudits, when in fact the whole thing needs to be written in a more neutral tone. That is, the article should not assume the reader is from the UK. What if the reader were American? Do they see this as "British" history or as "World" history? World history, indeed.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 11:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

So change it then. What are your specific concerns? If you bemoan the fact there is little info from the German POV or French POV, that is because few sources exist in English - you're certainly welcome to add any useful info on the German or French experience that you may have. Your edit to the intro, however, is awkward and unsourced. I doubt the battle is as big in collective conscience as the Somme is in England, or Verdun is in France. Can you provide a quote?Michael Dorosh 13:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've changed the article to hopefully reflect why the article seems Anglo-centric. The battle is, rightly or wrongly, the battle that has come to typify the World War I experience of Britain (in Canada it is Vimy, in Australia, Gallipoli). Incidentally, I'm not British and I think the article reads fine as is, but would certainly like to see some German and French info thrown in for balance. But if I didn't have that to offer, I wouldn't simply complain from the sidelines. Looking forward to your contributions.Michael Dorosh 13:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Combatants

Since we lump the various German posessions at the time into the 'German Empire', would it not be more appropriate to list 'British Empire, France' as the combatants on the Allied side? — ceejayoz ^talk 03:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You are quite right. I have edited the list to reflect that in the First World War the British Empire was fully intact in the sense that all the Dominions and Colonies, although some had limited self-government, remained under the authority of Britain and fought under the Union Flag; even if a Dominion ensign was carried in some places at some time, e.g. Vimy Ridge. Contrary to the presentation of current historical revisionists who identify the Dominions as "allies", all the soldiers of the British Empire were "British" and the more appropriate differentiation would be the "nationalies" of the Dominions with "England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales". Indeed,the "Canadian Corps" was two-thirds UK born men. The Commonwealth did not yet exist and the Statute of Westminster was two decades away.--pidd 15:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, and of the Australians who fought in WW1 a third were British-born and another third second generation (ie. had British parents). They regarded themselves as "British" in a way subsequent generations didn't.

Does seem revisionist.

Chicago Tribune

I think we should delete the last paragraph as it gives a grossly exaggerated amount of men that were shot at dawn. Any thoughts.

• Firstly, please sign your comments with four tildes. (~~~~) Secondly, if you have a better source, I'd go ahead and put it in the article, but don't forget to footnote it.Michael Dorosh 17:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"Consciencious Objectors"

The 386 number is incorrect, there weren't 386 soldiers executed for cowardice/consciencious objection, Im not even sure if Britain executed that many soldiers in the war period, and besides I don't see what the particular number of those executed in the entire war has to do with this battle, there surely weren't 386 people executed during the battle of the Somme. I opt to remove it.

Anomaly 54 17:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

New external link

I've just added a link to a new feature on our NZHistory.net.nz website. The feature was written by a professional historian and includes a number of images never before published.

I hope this is acceptable - please let me know if there is a problem with my adding this.

Jamie Mackay 20:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a wikipedia featured article!!!

I am surprised that wikepedia would elevate this article to featured article status. It probably serves well as a beginner's guide to the Somme with it's comprehensive dating and collection of facts. However the real history; the analysis and conlcusions are very poor. The fundamental conclusion of the piece is that the Somme was a success for the British. This beggars belief for anyone woth a smattering of knowledge of the Somme, the rest of WW1 and C.20th combat. This is not the place for a complete counter-thesis, but it is important that some elementary failings in the article are pointed out.

1. in para. 2 the battle "is best remembered therefor (sic) it's first day, 1 July 1916, on which the British suffered 57,470 casualties". By section 7 (Debut of the Tank) however, "the battle is chiefly remembered today as the debut of the tank.". I would suggest the former is true but it certainly can't be both!
2. The very same introductory paragraph states that "By the end of the battle, the British had learnt many lessons in modern warfare while the Germans had suffered irreplaceable losses." What happened to marshalling the evidence and THEN drawing conlusions? Furthermore the assertion is vacuous nonsense. Why did the British blearn lessons but the Germans didn't? Why would German losses (from apopulation of 70 million) be less replaceable than British (pop. 50 million)?
3. It may be historically true that the British Official historian stated that, "It is not too much to claim that the foundations of the final victory on the Western Front were laid by the Somme offensive of 1916." But it doesn't make his the statement true. Surely there is more to history than quoting the participants?
4. The section on the debut of the tank is accurate in detail but flawed in its basic thrust. Apparently, "The British had high hopes that this secret weapon would break the deadlock of the trenches"? Which British? Not the High Command who had little or no interest in new technology such as tanks. Those British who did support tanks had advised that the tank NOT be thrown in hastily into the unsuitable Somme battle. Haig threw them in for political reasons and thus threw away the potential surprise effect. The big story in the inrtoduction of tanks is not their use but their mis-use
5. The last paragraph in the 'Tanks' section appears to have nothing to do with tanks but is perhaps part of the chronological sequence.
6. The conclusion that "the Battle of the Somme delivered more benefits for the British than it did for the Germans" may be true but its is entirely unsupported by the evidence of thsi article. It should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmurnion (talk • contribs) 00:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

German losses were less sustainable (despite Germany having a larger population than the UK) because Germany was also having to fight against the French on the rest of the Western Front, and Russia in the East (where the Germans deployed about half as much strength as they had deployed in the West). Surely this is obvious. Plus, as has been pointed out many times by Gary Sheffield et al, the Germans were losing trained troops whereas the British weren't.

While German losses were less sustainable the point that Germany lost trained troops while Britain lost green ones is flawed at best. Why did Germany have trained troops at the Somme? Because they didn't have theirs massacred in the opening states of the war while the BEF was put out of action by the end of 1914 Britain being mainly restricted to defense in 1915 and the first half of 1916. One would also assume that when Germany still had trained troops at quiet locations while fighting at Verdun, against Russia and invading Romania Germany obviously didn't depend on those soldiers for their own major operations. They actually pulled troops out of there to fight in other theatres.

Germany managed to hold out at the Somme against large odds while scoring victories in the east conquering Romania and inflicting serious defeats on Russia that destabilized the Tsarist empire further. The problems that plagued germany in 1917 were not primarily manpower (having freed up tons and tons of veteran soldiers from the Eastern Front) but supply and logistics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.13.90.39 (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

"Germany lost trained troops while Britain lost green ones is flawed at best" - no, it's a statement of fact. Germany, in common with continental countries, had more trained troops to start with as she had peacetime conscription. Hence the casualties of 1914-15 hit the BEF harder, but what on earth else was Britain supposed to do? Not fight? Occasionally one sees arguments along the lines of "Britain should have husbanded her resources for two years and built up a large, trained army" but this tends to come from the criticise-for-the-sake of criticism muckrakers. Standing aside in this way wasn't feasible - and incidentally Britain wasn't "on the defensive" in 1915 - there were various offensives, including Neuve Chapelle, Aubers Ridge and Loos - latter battle was quite big. Victories in the east in 1916? Well, there was Lake Narotch, and the Germans made a contribution to defeating the Brusilov Offensive. There were a few German divisions in Romania but most of the troops in that campaign were Turkish, Bulgarian and AH, not German. Saying "German conquest of Romania proves the failure of the Somme" is as daft as saying "Hitler was able to transfer a few divisions to Italy in 1943, so that proves the Soviets failed at Stalingrad and Kursk"! Bottom line: German High Command was always desperately scrabbling round for a handful of divisions that could plug some hole or other (and to be fair they did a very good job of it), as the recent Foley biog of Falkenhayn brings out. German shortage of manpower in 1917-18 is amply attested in German accounts, eg. Holger Herwig. Germany freed up some troops when Eastern Front ended, but not as many as is sometimes thought - large garrisons were left behind in the Ukraine etc, and those who did come west were often disaffected by Bolshevik propaganda and spread poor morale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.192.0.10 (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

its gone

Someonoe has just deleted it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.6.232.228 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Lacking sources for casualties data

Like said in title, the casualties are often disputed, the source for the location of that data should be quoted. GBobly 23:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

featured?

I'm confused - is this featured or not? This edit added the featured template Jooler 00:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That's an edit by the FAC director, so yes it's featured.LuciferMorgan 00:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I got confused, but I don't think the NPOV tag is appropriate. The IP who added the tag didn't elaborate on his concerns. Jooler 00:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hawthorne Ridge Mine

According to this article, "Zero-hour for the Battle of the Somme was 7:30 a.m. on 1 July 1916. Ten minutes prior to this, at 7:20 a.m., the mine beneath Hawthorn Ridge Redoubt was detonated by an officer. The reason he detonated the mine earlier than was planned is unknown." However, the Hawthorn Ridge Redoubt article gives an explanation for this. Which article is correct? Seleucus 00:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Auto peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 2 miles, use 2 miles, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 2 miles.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?]
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: neighbour (B) (American: neighbor), metre (B) (American: meter), defense (A) (British: defence), defence (B) (American: defense), organise (B) (American: organize), recognize (A) (British: recognise), recognise (B) (American: recognize), realise (B) (American: realize), counter-attack (B) (American: counterattack), grey (B) (American: gray), sceptic (B) (American: skeptic).
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Mal 03:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

== error in prelude? ==

The last paragraph of the prelude states that the Englisch had with air superiority with "... ten squadrons and 185 aircraft against the 129 German squadrons". Shouldn't this be "...against the 129 German planes"? (In ?? squadrons). As I have no sources to check the numbers I hesitate to change it myself. Pukkie 09:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Weasel Words

I feel the Conclusions section is full of weasel words. I don’t think it’s appropriate for the author to simply label viewpoints with which they don’t agree as “revisionist”. Clearly some of the figures and viewpoints can indeed be discounted, but much of the time few definitive conclusions can really be drawn. It all adds up to a thoroughly POV end to the article, which is a shame. --62.173.76.218 11:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. A point-counterpoint format can effectively rebut contraversial statements without the need for weasel words. However, point-counterpoint formats do require extensive citation. I have removed the POV wordings and introduced a citations flag. Any individual who can help add to the citation for this section would be greatly appreciated. Djma12 20:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"revisionist" is a better description of the Terraine/Sheffield school than the really poisonous and belittling "apologist".

F. Scott Fitzgerald "Tender is the Night"

Scott Fitzgerald writes very nicely about the Battle of the Somme in his book "Tender Is The Night" (Book I, Chapter XII [1])

"Dick turned the corner of the traverse and continued along the trench walking on the duckboard. He came to a periscope, looked through it a moment; then he got up on the step and peered over the parapet. In front of him beneath a dingy sky was Beaumont Hamel; to his left the tragic hill of Thiepval. Dick stared at them through his field glasses, his throat straining with sadness... ...“This land here cost twenty lives a foot that summer,” he said to Rosemary... ...“See that little stream—we could walk to it in two minutes. It took the British a month to walk to it—a whole empire walking very slowly, dying in front and pushing forward behind. And another empire walked very slowly backward a few inches a day, leaving the dead like a million bloody rugs. No Europeans will ever do that again in this generation.”"

I think it is worth to put it into the main article. What is your opinion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.34.8.212 (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Anglo bias revisted

The battle is best remembered for its first day, 1 July 1916, on which the British suffered 57,470 casualties, including 19,240 dead — at that time the bloodiest day in the history of the British Army.

Shouldn't this read "...on which British Empire forces suffered..." and "...the bloodiest day in the history of British Empire and British Army forces"? As it reads now, non-Britis casualties are being described as British. Fishhead64 21:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

On review, this bias is pervasive throughout the article.

As discussed above, Canada and Australia etc were regarded as "British" in 1916, far more so than in subsequent generations. (They didn't even declare war separately, IIRC, they just thought the UK's DOW was binding on them). The Somme was and is the big horror in British national memory, like Verdun, Vimy and Gallipoli are for other countries. Still, it could do with more French and German info.

remove strategic effects section

There is a citations tag on the conclusions section. As I understand it this is requesting more citations for the argument counter-argument section headed "Strategic effects". I disagree with this approach. The original (2006) "Strategic effects" was a set of unsubstantiated opinions dressed up as fact. I edited it to show that these were opinions and that there were alternative views. On consideration my efforts to moderate this section with counterpoints is not the correct solution. Adding citations to these two counter-vailing viewpoints will only add a spurious credibility to the whole section. It is a bit like having a section comparing darwinian selction and creationism: adding citations to creationist authors is total fakery. The consensus throughout the C.20th was that the Somme was a military disaster for Britain. The theory being presented here that the Somme laid the foundations of Germany's defeat represents a revolution in historiography if it is true. A new controversial theory such as this requires a lot of supporting evidence and serious analysis and critique. It is inappropriate, even intellectually dishonest to present it as accepted history at the end of an article which is mostly a straightforward chronology.

If contributors want to continue to present this (entirely unconvincing) theory it should have it's own page.

The Strategic effects section should be deleted or reduced to a some sort of short one liner stating that it had no clear strategic effects and possibly linking to this controversial theory on a separate page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pmurnion (talk • contribs) 09:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

The "revolution in historiography" has been going on for decades, and is now almost a consensus among serious historians. It is only very recently (since the late 1990s) that it has started to penetrate popular consciousness. When I was a kid it always used to puzzle me how the Allies ever won the First World War. You had all these "disasters" (Gallipoli, Somme, Passchendaele etc), the Germans conquered various bits of Europe etc. Then the Germans mysteriously collapsed in the final round, supposedly because of the blockade (which in fact only really bit hard in the final years and into 1919) and/or the glorious American victory in the Argonne. Compared to that, the idea that the huge battles of the western front played a role in grinding down the German army is actually a great deal more convincing. That's not to say that the Somme was a spectacular victory, of course - merely that it was a necessary price. Nowadays we all live comfortable lives in the West (although some would argue that war is a necessary part of human existence and we have lost sight of how sheltered we are by our technological superiority) and it is hard to come to terms with how willingly our great-grandfathers went to their deaths, which is perhaps why those who point out a few home truths have to put up with comical abuse "Intellectual Dishonesty" "Disgrace to Scholarship" etc.

In my view this strategic effect cannot be attributed to the Somme battle but to the strategic situation of the war itself. With facing 200 million Russians, 60 million French and 50 million British it doesn't matter where German soldiers died, if it was not an entirely lopsided engagement it was to the advantage of the Allies. Austria Hungary had been thoroghly bled dry by the opening offensives of Russia. Turkey was even in a worse strategic position than Germany ending up in a four front war all over its empire and additionally in no shape whatsoever to fight a modern industrialized war. The strategic position of Germany demanded a crushing and quick victory over one of her foes in her military plans precisely because it was obvious for anyone in the high command that a war of attrition was to germany's disadvantage and time was in favour of the Allies. The blockade of Germany which depended on food imports was as much a factor of this as all battles of attrition the German army was forced to fight.

Also concerning the blockade: It's effects were massive, the reason why these effects weren't visible at the front lines was simply that everything was done to keep the German army fighting and thus fed. At home however thousands of Germans starved to death and malnutition and everyday problem which is not usual for a wealthy industrial society.

The blockade bit gradually on Germany throughout the war, its effects at this stage being mainly food shortages and slightly higher mortality rates among children and the elderly. Lack of potatoes did not defeat the German Army though - lack of manpower did, and large battles on the Western Front were a factor in this. "Death and malnutrition", among adults at any rate, were only widespread in Germany in the fianl stages of the war and in the year or so afterwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.134.22.101 (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that the German soldiers had no sufficient provisions by 1917 compared to the Allies and the civilians were in open revolt throughout the various domains of the empire it is shortsighted to think it didn't stop the Germany Army. Impact on morale and public opinion was devastating to the monarchy. 93.135.73.60 (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not "shortsighted", it's a statement of fact. The German Army was short on luxuries (hence the looting of captured British supplies in March 1918) but still perfectly capable of fighting - they managed some successful (tactically at any rate) offensives on all fronts in 1917 and 1918, blockade or no blockade, and strikes and unrest at home notwithstanding ("open revolt" is an exaggeration). The fact is that the German Army was beaten in the field and driven back in the latter part of 1918. The Kaiser was bundled out of the way (Hindenburg and Groener told him the Army would no longer support him) when it was clear Germany had no chance of winning the war - not before. It is not logically impossible that lack of supplies impacted the German Army's fighting performance, or that they were a factor in the decision that peace had to be sought at once rather than spending 1919 conducting a fighting retreat to the Rhine, but you'd need to make a much more sophisticated argument to demonstrate this - not the same as asserting the German Army was "stopped" by lack of "sufficient provisions". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.192.0.10 (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Disgustingly British

The battle of Vimy ridge is not considered a Canadian victory, Vimy Ridge wasa canadian victory!

Count zero hour

The article says arty lifted at zero hour; Regan, p.158, says ten minutes prior. Also, I deleted, "an act that would ultimately bring the United States into the war" as fiction; it was more due to Germany promising Texas to Mexico if she joined the war, revealled by the Zimmermann telegram, which the U.S., needless to say, couldn't reveal she'd read...but which, I would have thought, historiographers would have heard of. My mistake; it's persistently ignored.... Trekphiler 17:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

French army

The article blatantly discounts the contribution of the French forces. However their contribution was far from negligible: 13 British and 11 French divisions were present at the start, moving on to 51 British and 48 French divisions at the end. Half the allied casualties were French. There clearly is a problem with the way the article is presently drafted. 193.132.242.1 13:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a fault which it shares with almost all accounts in English. I suspect a French division may have been somewhat smaller than a British one though - the French would had originally planned to do more on the Somme but Verdun kicked off first. As for the skewing of the casualty figures (2/3 of them British) the French were more skilled in infantry/artillery tactics as they had been doing more fighting up until that point, and also German resistance was heavier on the British front as they had to cover the railway line through Bapaume. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.40.200.97 (talk) 23:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Darcy Hodgson

The commander of the British 4th army was changed here from Henry S. Rawlinson to Darcy Hodgson. I reverted it, as I was unable to to find any mention of the latter, and would expect someone in that position to have an article, which they did not. If I am incorrect in this assumption, please feel free to correct me! Thanks --Kateshortforbob 21:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

These four sentences violate wikipedia NPOV guidelines:

As terrible as the battle was for the British Empire troops who suffered there, it naturally affected the other nationalities as well. One German officer (Captain von Hentig) famously described it as "the muddy grave of the German field army". By the end of the battle, the British had learned many lessons in modern warfare, while the Germans had suffered irreplaceable losses. British historian Sir James Edmonds stated: "It is not too much to claim that the foundations of the final victory on the Western Front were laid by the Somme offensive of 1916."

The first sentence is a tautology, the second is insidious given the blatantly unbalanced sentence that follows it. It is in fact too much to claim "that the foundations of the final victory on the Western Front were laid by the Somme offensive of 1916," in the opening paragraph of a Wikipedia article, as this view is highly debatable, and not widely held by British historians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tripalis (talk • contribs) 04:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The Allied forces attempted to break through the German lines along a 95-mile (40 km) front north and south of the River Somme in northern France.

Should this be "95-km (40 mile)? 95 miles is a lot more than 40 km. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.65.250 (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

How wide was the front?

The Allied forces attempted to break through the German lines along a 95-mile (40 km) front north and south of the River Somme in northern France.

I don't think the front at the Somme was as long as 95 miles. If it was, then it would be 152 km, not 40. If the author meant to say 95 km, then it would be about 57 miles. If the front was 40 miles, then it would be 64 km.--Nunquam Dormio (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beetfarm Louie (talk • contribs) 11:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The British attacked on a front of approximately 14 miles. The front was not straight, the actual direct line between the northernmost and southernmost points of attack was only about 11 miles. The French attack front was something less. So the TOTAL length of front attacked was less than 20 miles. The whole point about the Somme was the tiny space all the killing occurred in. 95 miles is garbage. Rcbutcher (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Discrepancy RE: British Forces Casualities on First Day of Battle

Reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I we find the following: "On 1 July 1916, the first day of the Battle of the Somme, the British Army endured the bloodiest day in its history, suffering 57,470 casualties and 19,240 dead. Most of the casualties occurred in the first hour of the attack. The entire offensive cost the British Army almost half a million men.

This article says: "The battle is best remembered for its first day, 1 July 1916, on which the British suffered 67,470 casualties, including 29,240 dead — the bloodiest day in the history of the British Army." Someone who knows something about the subject will want to fix one article, or the other, I am sure. Hi There (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

All serious sources quote the British dead on July 1 as nearly 20,000. The exact number can differ based on definitions used, subsequent findings, casualties who died later. A commonly quoted number is 19,240. Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 07:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Time to lock all these Battle pages ?

It's obvious that corrupting all the WWI battle pages has become a sport with semi-literate kids. Unless we lock the pages and restrict update to trusted users, we're going to be on a never-ending firefighting exercise. The idea that anonymous users contribute anything to Wikipedia is baloney. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism 'season' has started again now the schools are back. You go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and ask for semi-protection. However the admins who patrol that page set a very high threshold before they do anything. The fact that, say, the last the last 14 edits on a page were either vandalism or reverting vandalism will usually get the response that the vandalisn isn't serious enough. I suggest that, if you don't get any results from trying the above, you ask a friendly admin directly. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 08:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've had a go at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Battle_of_the_Somme_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 Nunquam Dormio (talk) 08:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Declined by administrator. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've asked an admin to semi-protect the article. It's getting silly again. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Also in the casualty section, could someone please change the word "scepticism" to the proper spelling which is "skepticism."

This article is written in British English. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Trivia section

Isn't it somewhat tasteless, to say the very least, that there is a 'Trivia Section' right after the death toll of the battle? If JRR Tolkien was a combatant, then he should be listed in a section of people who were combatants —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.250.195 (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

First American Killed of WWI

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=50645 there are more articles on him, and even a whole book. although he was serving for the royal artillery, he was definitely of American nationality. a sacrifice as equal of any.70.135.12.223 (talk) 10:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Who won?

User:Trip Johnson has been changing this to an allied victory, although he has not provided references. I changed it back to indecisive, and it should stay that way unless a reference can be provided. (Bluemr145 (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC))

Trip Johnson is getting into many disputes on various battle pages. It's best to treat his edits with some caution. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, before you go around stereotyping, someone changed this battle to an Allied victory before me. Maybe you should do some homework before accusing people, eh? (82.28.237.200 (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC))

No, you were the one who did it. You seem to have a problem when people change things without disscussing it, so please do not do it ot others. If you can find a reliable source we can keep it at what you put, but unitl you do it must remain the same. Bluemr145 (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Given the fact that the outcome of the battle was thousands dead on both sides and a total of 5 miles gained by the allies, I don't think by any stretch of the imagination you could call it an allied victory! Joe Deagan (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You obviously haven't taken into account the fact the Germans suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties which could not be replaced. This battle sapped the effectiveness of what was the German Army, and it is not too much of a grand claim that it laid down the foundations of Germany's defeat two years later.

Joe, battles are not always about ground gained and the numbers of men lost; the purpose of this battle was to draw the German forces off the French at Verdun if one remembers correctly. The battle achieved this and allowed the French to launch a counterattack agaisnt the German Army. In a strategic sense this battle was an Allied victory, am surprised noone has provided a citation for such yet.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Combatants

Why are "nations" such as Canada, Australia, Newfoundland etc. etc. listed as combatants as nations in their own right? All of those "countries" were still part of the British Empire at the time of the Battle, so why are they all listed as if they are independent nations? Shouldn't it be part of somekind of list, such as:

British Empire

*Newfoundland
*Canada
*Australia

(Trip Johnson (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC))

Good point. Strategically, all those countries fought as part of a single military entity, the British Empire, and initially all the Generals were British. At the top level it was a single army and navy. But at the level of individuals, many men saw their own country as their primary allegiance. And as the war progressed, the "junior partner" countries increasingly fought under their own generals as they got promoted. By the end the dominion forces were pretty much armies in their own right, and the Dominions brought their own demands to Versailles. Hence I would say that what started out as a single British Empire military force, ended the war as a coalition of Britain and partner dominions. I'm sure that's how the men saw it. Following on from that, it pays respect to the Dominion forces to list them as equal partners as combatants rather than subordinates. Rcbutcher (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The solution is to clarify the relationship in the info box for all combatants. France also has 'other nations' in its army as does Germany. If every nation isn't listed then an overall heading should be used that at least indicates they might be listed later by someone who knows them all. I bolded an overall header description for the main combatants, under which 'nations' could be listed besides those of the British.Tttom1 (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The "combatants" heading reflects units that were raised and functioned as "Canadaian" or "Australian" or whatever, not who was actually in them. You would find people from every country on earth in various armies for various reasons. E.g. the French Foreign Legion regiments come under France, because they were raised by France as part of the French armed forces and fought under French command. Likewise the Canadian forces which included many Americans, they were raised and functioned as Canadian regiments. Rcbutcher (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Conceptual Inexactitude

I was a little disappointed with the article, I found it too much in the 'mud, blood and poetry' tradition. I think that some relatively recent scholarship would substantially improve the article if it was incorporated. I hesitate to alter anything, having read the discussion page but I would like the chance to make a case for the historiography of the battle (and the war) being somewhat biased by anachronistic and misguided ideas about manoeuvre warfare, breakthrough operations and the light losses illusion. Is anyone interested? Apropos, does anyone have an example of a breakthrough in any WWI battle? Keith-264 (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

On the Eastern Front, yes, several.. where there was sufficient space for manouevre.. i.e. lower ratio of men per mile, and flanks that could be "turned" using brains rather than blood. The tragedy of the Western Front was that there were millions of men trapped along a short virtually straight line with no possibility of "turning the flank" i.e. no chance of manouevre. There was simply too little motorised transport, no tactical radio communications, too much ordnance and too many well-trained and highly-motivated men on both sides, compressed into a small space, to allow any significant breakthroughs on the Western Front. The French General put it "whatever you do, you lose a lot of men". It was only in 1918, when enough men had been slaughtered on all sides to open up the battlefield, that any breakthroughs became possible. Therein lies the tragedy : it became "last man standing" : the greatest military genius in history could not have avoided this. Hence the blood and poetry approach perhaps best describes the whole tragic exercise. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying RCB. I think breakthrough is a misnomer for events in the East. In fact I'd go as far as to say that the course of the Gorlice-Tarnow offensive is the inevitible form that the war took after the fighting of 1914. The Germans blinked first in 1914 because they were less able to withstand the stupendous losses of open warfare, particularly when the French demonstrated superior strategic manoeuvrability and stopped the German advance near Paris. Trench warfare is substantially less lethal than open warfare therefore the side that resorted to it acknowledged an inability to force a victory through offensive warfare. In the west the Germans played for time whilst exploiting their corresponding advantage against the Russians. The G-T offensive wasn't a battle of manoeuvre. It was a battle of firepower where the Germans overwhelmed the defence with heavy guns. The Russians were forced to withdraw out of range and the Germans moved their guns forward and began again. The Russians lost heavily but so did the Germans relative to their lesser resources. The Russians could afford to give ground and as Falkenhayn pointed out this meant that as long as they did they could draw the Germans into a wilderness that was strategically worthless.

The same thing happened in the west though it took longer because Britain had to assemble a continental sized army as well as deploy it. I fear that this prolonged the war perhaps by a couple of years. Consider that the British effort on the Somme with a partially equipped force had similar effects to the French offensives of 1915 - a small capture of ground for the same reason - the Germans fought so hard to hold it. The strain on the German defence was huge. The depletion of the means to do this equally so. For Falkenhayn the only chance Germany had was to fight in a way which conserved German manpower as much as it consumed the Entente's. A strictly defensive strategy wouldn't work so he tried to draw the westenders into attacks where German firepower would do what its limited manpower couldn't (Gorlice-Tarnow in reverse). It worked for a time, like the defence of Normandy in 1944, but the resilience of the Entente and its growing material and technological superiority was unbeatable. As the war went on, the speed of German's military depletion accelerated. What you wrote about 1918 I see as the culmination of this process. For all the changes in equipment by 1939-45 the course of that war wasn't much different. Even with the means to fight bewegungskrieg again, nazi Germany was still a talented middleweight taking on three heavyweights. Keith-264 (talk) 11:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Having written that there weren't any 'breakthroughs' in WWI (and precious few in WWII) I have been wondering about the Brusilov Offensive. Would that count or would its effect on the Austro-Hungarian army be analogous to the implosions of the French, Russian, Ottoman and German armies?Keith-264 (talk) 07:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Casualties section has a division containing 10,000 men, I thought the British div was around 18,000 before the 1918 cuts.

"British losses, a product of Trenchard's aggressively offensive posture to the exclusion of superior German Air Service mobility and weather (prevailing winds blew towards the Allied side), contributed."

Erm, I don't know what this means. According to Biggles though, the prevailing winds are from east to west[west to east actually!]. Would 'British losses were high, caused by Trenchard's insistence on offensive action despite German air reinforcements and the weather.' help?Keith-264 (talk) 09:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Keith-264 (talk) 09:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The German withdrawal of Feb 1917. Surely this was to establish German defences in fortified positions like the ones they had been driven out of at such cost on the Somme? Surely this suggests (at least) that the Germans believed that they couldn't withstand the semi-open and open warfare that began as they lost the fortifications they'd spent two years building? If the benefit of the new Hindenburg Line defences was as great as claimed, was the 'new policy' of Hindenburg and Ludendorff really that new? Isn't this a continuation of the war of exhaustion that Falkenhayn had been fighting since 1914 (as the only practical way for Germany to stave off defeat)? Keith-264 (talk) 10:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's important that this article talks somewhat about the historiography of the battle. I wouldn't say it's too unbalanced to the "mud, blood and poetry" tradition but there is certainly plenty of scope for a deeper article which covers the controvesies more fully. The Land (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Than you for replying. Apropos the Battle of Normandy, Terry Copp pointed out that if you look at events from the point of view of 'cost-benefit' analysis rather than a 'win-lose' narrative, Allied efforts look a lot less expensive and a lot less inept. I suppose that is in the logic of attrition. Trying to impose a bewegungskrieg paradigm on a war of exhaustion (ermattungskrieg) is bound to make both sides look wrongheaded. It seems to me that the Anglo-French succeeded on the Somme where Germany failed at Verdun. The Germans were able to use the peace dividend from Russia in early 1918 to try to get out from under but it wasn't enough so 'Somme strategy' methods, more and more refined did for the Germans in the end.Keith-264 (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

allies

The germany italy and autrohungary where the allince britain france and russia where the tripple entraunt fought i mention it becuase very article on world war one is wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.140.83 (talk) 11:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Prior & Wilson p. 128 has nothing to do with the 450,000 dead/wounded it is referring to

Well, have a look for yourself: http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&id=6XYXWDGF9JIC&dq=Prior+%26+Wilson&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=ovXdHsbJQP&sig=kJIVrhjs-kwKerYb8anGNy257RY&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPP5,M1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.132.227 (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I just did, and I re–confirm that the citation is not correct (in both the on-line version quoted above as well as my hard–copy version!) Farawayman (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Desperately needs citations

This article desperately needs citations. Can anyone help? I am trying to add where I can. The article is a top importance article given that last month it had about 60,000 hits and already has over 30,000 this month it should be a priority to fix up. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Retreat to the Hindenburg Line

Does anyone have any sources on the question of whether the Battle of the Somme was the main reason for the German abandonment of the region in early 1917 (apart from Terraine that is)?Keith-264 (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

William Philpott, Bloody Victory: The Sacrifice on the Somme, Little Brown, London, 2009, pp. 379-380. 59.100.140.28 (talk) 13:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Discrepancy with Haig Article

The introduction to this article suggests Haig was a Field Marshall in 1915, whilst his personal article claims he did not obtain this rank until 1917. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Haig,_1st_Earl_Haig#1917 Jean-Jacques R (talk) 12:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Please could someone replace 'Field Marshall' with 'General' in the last paragraph of the introduction? As stated above (and indeed in the body of this article), Haig had not attained the rank of Field Marshall at this point in time.

Done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

questionable statement in the lead

Haig was given this name as he never changed his tactics throughout the battle, causing thousands of soldiers' deaths.

Then one would ask what about the introduction of tanks and new artillery tactics such as the creeping barrage? All introduced to save lifes. If anyone has seen this mans diary they would also see how he attended military demonstrations of new tactics and was all for better fighting technquies.

I am removing the statement from the article--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC) It may be a good idea to point out that trench warfare was safer than open warfare!Keith-264 (talk) 07:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC) I am reading Philpott's new book, which although a synthesis of mainly secondary sources has some merit (apart from the atrocious prose) so I expect to be able to offer sources and references to this article. Keith-264 (talk) 08:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been doing the same from Hart's "The Somme." where applicable.

By the way, what does the "protection" warning on opening the edit screen actually do? I assumed that the text was now deemed "acceptable" and was thus protected from editing and that only CITE or REF functions would be permitted - as this is what the various banners call for. I however found that despite this "protection", I could edit any text (I changed a date for example, from "...late December" to "19 December"), not only adding CITEs or REFs. Farawayman (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It reads "This page has been semi-protected so that only established users can edit it." Semi-protection stops unregistered (IP address) editors and recently created accounts from editing the page. When this page is not semi-protected, it gets a lot of puerile vandalism from schoolboys (whenever WW1 is on their history curriculum) and most edits become either vandalism or reverting vandalism. So it's not a statement that the page has reached some state of perfection, more to stop it getting worse. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Having read Philpott's valuable but flawed (and dreadfully written) book and just finished '1916' Vol 2 I wouldn't go overboard about Rawlinson's preference for limited attacks over attempts at breaking through. It was Haig's job to think big and integrate the British effort on the Somme with the French, Russian and Italian bids to impose so much pressure on the German defences as to break them. The probability of failure on the first day needs to be considered with the net gain expected somewhere on the Western, Russian and Southern Fronts because of the magnitude and synchronisation of the attacks. Prior and Wilson condemn this because they calculate that the British didn't have enough heavy artillery to overcome such extensive defensive works but the point that perhaps made more impression on the British at the time was the difficulty in aiming their artillery. More guns in July 1916 would have meant more shells landing in the wrong place. Keith-264 (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Order of Battle

Should we not add an order of battle for both opposing sides into this article? If not, where does it belong? Farawayman (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest a seperate article for the OOB and a link to it from this article.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done Refer: Battle of the Somme: Order of Battle - not even a stub.... still lots of work to be done! Farawayman (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This OOB is a bit more work than I expected, especially if structured per Corps. Any inputs or additions would be appreciated - its still very much in a "Work in Progress" status. Refer Battle of the Somme: order of battle. Farawayman (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Flags in Campaignbox

I have removed the Newfoundland flag - as these troops officially served under the Canadian Corps. I have also added the India flag as the 2nd Indian Cavalry Division took part in the Battle of Bazentin (14 - 17 July 1916) Farawayman (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

After adding the 29th Div into the oob, I found that the Royal Newfoundland Regiment served as part of 29th Div and not as part of the Canadian Corps. I have thus re-inserted the Newfoundland flag (as a separate dominion) into the battlebox. Farawayman (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

New questions about the lead

The battle started with infantry and cavalry in man-to-man battles for the control of individual trenches...

I may not be an expert in the field of the First World War however my understanding is that the cavalry divisions were held in reserve in these types of battles for the exploitation phase that never came; the cavalrymen, who did fight did so as infantry. Now if that is the case shouldn’t this sentence be modified to fit the situation i.e. “dismounted”, “fighting on foot” etc etc

Both sides had suffered immense casualties with neither being able to claim any strategic advantage.

My understanding of this battle is that the Allied forces fought it for strategic effect and gained it – again I profess that I am no expert or even that knowledgeable on the First World War; drawing attention off the Verdun front and helping to alleviate the situation there. Does not one source imply this or is this a “myth” of the battle?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

'The Great War' by Field Marshal von Hindenburg (Ed. C Messenger) 2006 has, 'On the Somme the struggle had now been raging nearly two months. There we passed from one crisis to another. Our lines were permanently in a condition of the highest tension.' (p. 100) 'Over everyone hovered the fearful spectre of this battlefield which for desolation and horror seemed to be even worse than that of Verdun.' (p. 123) 'So it was a case of retreat on the Western Front instead of attack! It was a dreadful disappointment for the army in the west; worse, perhaps, for the public at home;(sic) and worst - as we had good reason to fear - for our allies.... The brilliant, if somewhat belated, visible result of the bloody battle, the collapse of German resistance.... What a hail of propagandist literature would now descend on and behind our lines!'(p. 135) '... I found myself compelled by the general situation ... to order the offensive at Verdun to be broken off. The battles there exhausted our forces like an open wound.' (p.121) Evidently Hindenburg saw the battles at Verdun and the Somme as part of the same struggle. On the one hand he calls the Somme indecisive and on the other gives it as the cause of the retreat to the Hindenburg Line (Siegfried Stellung). It seems to me that this was even more significant than the effect of the Brusilov Offensive. Keith-264 (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for that, i have added it to the article. Do we have other sources supporting or opposing the view of a strategic victory?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The OH II p.555 quotes Falkenhayn (21st Aug '16) 'Beneath the enormous pressure which now rests up us we have no superfluity of strength. Every removal in one direction leads eventually to dangerous weakness in another place which may lead to our destruction if even the least adjustment in the enemy's dispositions is made.' (from German OH vol x pp. 675-676). 'The German army had been fought to a standstill and was utterly worn out.' (from Ludendorff i., p. 304). Hindenburg, 'We must save the men from a second Somme battle.' (from German OH vol xi., p. 470). 'in its results the first material battle of the World War turned to the disadvantage of the victorious (sic) Germans, for no art of the commander could give them back the trained soldiery which had been destroyed.' ('Somme' by Hans Henning Freiherr Grote p. 163). p. 556, Of less importance was the extent of the ground yielded, although it must be remembered that the retreat of the Germans early in 1917, a direct result of the losses they had sustained on the Somme, had great influence upon the future course of events.... but in Picardy during the summer and autumn of 1916 the foundations of the final victory were laid.Keith-264 (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC) '... the Battle of the Somme was an unquestionable Allied victory, mainly a British one, because it laid the essential foundation for the final defeat of the Germans in the field.' 'Douglas Haig The Educated Soldier' by John Terraine, p. 230. (1963, 2005)Keith-264 (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Alt Text

Hi all, the images within this article need alterntive text adding. This is one of the requirements, iirc, that is looked for during the FAC process; i understand that the article is currently not up for that however its something that can be gotten out of the way rather quickly. I would do it myself however am not that good at getting a good description down.

The alt text pops up when you hover the mouse of the photo and is for people who art partially sighted etc

The below is an example of how to do it and how it looks like, this example comes from the Second World War Operation Charnwood article.

A hull down dug-in Panzer IV of the 1/22nd Panzer Regiment, photographed near Lébisey.

[[File:Dug-in panzer IV.jpg|right|thumb|upright=1.1|alt=A frontal view of a knocked out German tank in a hull-down position, protected by earth entrenchments.|A [[hull down]] dug-in Panzer IV of the 1/22nd Panzer Regiment, photographed near Lébisey.]]--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Intro

Altered some of the wording to make it more descriptive and changed an assertion about German defences - by the end of the battle the Germans had been driven out of much of the elaborate system they'd built since 1914 and were holding short lines of trench connected by barbed wire obstacles (see sketch maps, OH 1916 ptII and 'The Somme: The Day by Day Account' by Chris McCarthy).Keith-264 (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The lead

Hello all. Have just read this article and think the lead (to start with) should probably be completely rewritten. At present it doesn't say where the battle was fought (a reader might not know the Somme is a river, and doesn't even say the battle was fought in France), why it was fought, who the combatants were, why Verdun is significant, why the battle itself is significant, or give any of the historiographical details. Will have a crack at it myself if no one objects. --IxK85 (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparently no one objects, so I'm going to change the lead. About the 'muddy grave' quote, I don't think it's a loss to remove it from the lead, since it appears later in the article anyway, and I don't think the introduction needs the specifics about Bapaume or Le Transloy.--IxK85 (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Your copyedits to the lead were generally good. However, I restored the brief last paragraph of the intro that was edited out. This factual and sourced info makes the minor territorial gain clear (re: Bapaume and Le Transloy), and makes evident that Germans remained entrenched at the battle's end. Charvex (talk) 06:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the OH for 1917 vol1 you won't see a new campaign on the Somme after mid-December 1916. It decribes a cessation of operations during the wet weather and a resumption when the ground froze. The limiting factor for operations by the 5th and 4th armies was the timetable for the Arras Offensive, due in April. There's also a well-founded claim that the retreat to the Hindenburg Line was made necessary by the bashing the Germans got on the Somme and that it began prematurely because of these 1917 operations. The criticism of the 'small territorial gains' of the Battle needs to demonstrate that big gains were intended after the failure of the breakthrough attempt on the 1st of July or that the big gains obtained by the German retreat in early 1917 had nothing to do with the battle.Keith-264 (talk) 08:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I was extremely happy with the edit to the lead myself, and I should have said that earlier! Thank you for that! I am trying to bring to the article itself a lot more POV from French, Canadian, and German forces, as it does lean heavily towards the British POV. This can best be accomplished through using many different sources as I am doing. I have having difficulties finding good material on 4-13 July, but I will get back on track very soon. Your contributions will get to the goal of FA much more quickly, and that is a big help! Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 13:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

german casualties

after 90 years somebody found a book saying the germans lost more men on the somme. awesome... the article says "the figure of 680.000 was discredited" but its good enough for the infobox. gogo BIAS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.149.195 (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

the 613.000 entente casualties are the "official" figures. the german "offical" figures say 419.000 ( not sure ) german casualties. but we should not take the "official" figures for both sides, we should take the "low" numbers for the entente and the highest fanatasy numbers for the germans. thats how bias works... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.149.195 (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Why are you talking to yourself? Odd. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 23:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

why are u asking me such question ? do u want to discuss my points or do want to be funny? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.149.195 (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

When you answer yourself, it is odd to be sure... and the casualty numbers are correct according to numerous recent sources; as correct as they can be for a battle that occurred over 90 years ago. What do you expect from this, honestly? Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 15:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

they are not correct. not for both. biasshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 03:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

i brought some arguement . talk about this arguements. allied "official" numbers and german fantasy numbers. german inflictet much more casualties on entente . so its high likly that it is the same at this battle. no other article gives such high number for germans, iam pretty sure its the highest available. are u the guy who edited the infobox ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No I did not create or edit these numbers, but I can see that they are accurate as compared with modern sources. If you have sources that differ, present them! Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 12:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

ok which book do u take to say that u can see that they are accurate? take this book and tell me what this books says about allied casualties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.146.174 (talk) 05:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I dont really want to butt in, but we have already discussed this on other talk pages were you have stated you disagree with information presented. Firstly stop with the accusations and try to be civil.

Why do you believe these stats are wrong?

If you believe they are wrong, what are your relibable sources that support your position?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

instead of list empiric reasons why its obvious that the proportions of the casualties are wrong, i ask after the primary source for the estimate of german casus. what is the number for allied casualties mentioned in the same book ? by the way: when i clicked the link for entente casualties i found "620.000" allied casualties and "nearly 500.000" german. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.167.134 (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

and? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

thx woogie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.149.61 (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

he editors, u like your wrong bias numbers? can u do something now? where are the guys who edited this shit?????

ok now nobody reacts. i come to the page saying the figures are bias shit like in 100 other british articles. than another guy comes and shows u iam correct than nobody of u response...

Prelude: The state of the armies

Does anyone else think that this section could be dispensed with entirely? At the moment it's not only not about 'the state of the armies', but only about the BEF, and doesn't even mention the French or German, and the description of Haig seems little more than innuendo; '[promotion] did not always reflect competence or ability. Haig started as corps commander'. Whatever you might say about Haig's influential connections or later handling of the battle, there probably wasn't anyone obviously more qualified than him for C-in-C BEF at the outset. On top of that does an encyclopaedic article on the Somme really need references to Regan's 'Military Blunders' when there are plenty of better sources?--IxK85 (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the process of totally revamping this article to make it more all-inclusive and much, much less British Army heavy as it tends to be in parts, like the one you mentioned. You are correct- some sources are pretty weak, but for now they will stay until someone can come along to help with it, or I get to it after finishing the rest of the battles and the results. The whole section from the end of the lead to July 1st I have put off for now, so that is why it is the way it is. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 22:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

As it happens I've spent quite a bit of this year trying to make my mind up about the battle. On the whole I've found the British Official History an accurate description of events and by no means a travesty in its analysis. There is corroboration for this in Hindenburg and Ludendorff's memoirs. Christopher Duffy and Jack Sheldon's books add much empircal detail to the German army's ordeal. Philpott's book, though dreadfully written and poorly (if at all) edited concurs. Historigraphically there is far less in English of the French and German efforts but Foley's book and Falkenhayn's memoir make sense of German strategy for 1916 and the way that it was left in tatters at the end of the year. I'm not surprised at the anglocentric emphasis of an article written by English speakers because French and German sources are conspicuous by their absence in translation. If there is to be a prelude, I'd try to make it a survey of the state of play in early 1916 and incorporate into this the undoubted importance of the arrival of Britain's continental-sized army, its prospects and the effect that the German Verdun Offensive had on the British army's need to wait until it was ready and France and Russia's need for it to begin to exert pressure as soon as possible above the effort agreed at Chantilly. Keith-264 (talk) 10:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you definitely have something there with a lack of French and German sources translated and reprinted in English. I have found material in biographical works and others that have a narrow focus to balance it out more. Due to my heightened interest in World War I because of my great uncle's contribution in the CEF, I have looked in many places for more sources that highlight the Canadian effort. More often than not, my sources have revealed a lot on the British effort, but leaves the Canadian contribution as a much smaller one. This has held true in my current research on the Battle of the Somme, and my strategy as mentioned above has been effective for now. Of course, when using biographical works as sources, one must be careful not to tightly hold onto the views of the subject as it is only a part of the story, filled with opinions and facts according to the subject. This is why whenever opinions crop up, using "according to", etc. is appropriate. I just wish I had taken more German and French courses- perhaps it is not too late so I can translate them myself... one day, of course. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 15:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

there is

contradicting information on this article. --205.132.248.2 (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

State of the BEF

The original British Expeditionary Force, six divisions strong at the start of the war, had been wiped out by the battles of 1914 and 1915.

This really needs to be reworded; the point i believe the sentance is attempting to make is that the original six divisions had lost most of the regulars that they went to war with. The fact is however that the divisions were not wiped out; they stayed on the roster and served through the rest of the war - sure they were reinforced via new guys but that isnt implied by this sentance or the following.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources on the Tank

I am not a registered established member on this site (the new restrictions seem to defeat the romantic purpose of Wikipedia, and i fear it is the first step, but hey..) but can someone add a source to the tank site. One source i noted was the line on the 32 out of 49 tanks that made it. I recently read that in "Imperial War Museum Book of The Western Front- Malcolm Brown" so that is reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.194.27 (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

United States Casualty

I think adding a figure of "1" for United States casualties is self-serving, as I am sure there were citizens from other countries enlisted in British/French/German armies too. The list of casualties should only be broken down by countries that "officially" took part in the battle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.1.167 (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

Should the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India and Newfoundland all be under British Empire, as is used in the Infobox for the First world war Article? 82.1.157.16 (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Losses

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

I notice that the 'division' is still 10,000 instead of about 18,000* men and that the loss figures have no citation. Comments?Keith-264 (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitchener%27s_Army#Divisional_structure_in_1915 gives 19,614.Keith-264 (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Newfoundland's observation of 1 July

The article suggests that Newfoundland observes a memorial service on the Sunday closest to 1 July. While that was, for some time, the practice, for about a decade, now, Newfoundland has returned to holding a memorial service at 11:00 a.m. on 1 July, regardless of the calendar day of the week. The fact that the day is also Canada Day no longer seems to present a problem. The losses commemorated occurred long before Newfoundland became part of Canada.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.27.40 (talk) 02:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Battle of the Somme/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article is currently undergoing FA-Review. Please help review its suitability here and improve the article itself if you can. Going by the concerns raised, I think I'll probably reject its FA status too. We need to concentrate on the article if it is to maintain its current status. --Mal 00:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 00:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)