Last of Fromelles burials today 94 years on (1 Viewer)

[Rob]

Today in Fromelles France, the last of around 250 WW1 Australian and British recently discovered soldiers will be buried 94 years after they gave their lives for us in the worst War the world had seen at that time. Only around 90 have been identified, finally these brave young men will have the burial and rememberance they so richly deserve in the first new War cemetery in France for fifty years.

Will watch the service on BBC news today and will pause to remember.Also hope to visit Fromelles next year.

Rob

 

[UKReb]

Rob

Last September I was in Lille Nord-Pas-de-Calais and made a visit to Fromelles-a battleground I had not visited before. The authorities had just finished exhumation of the bodies of the allied soldiers you mention in your post-who once again had been mowed down by German machine guns like a game of pub skittles. The bodies-hundreds of them had been cleared and then transported by rail by the Germans and buried in mass graves back of their lines. Might just be me but everytime I visit one of these WWI sites I get damp eyes and when I research the battle in more detail-anger.

I know we have had just recently a number of revisionist authors telling us Douglas Haig & Co were not has bad as they had been painted by previous historians and he was forced to appease the French and attack at the Somme etc. etc. But call me old fashioned I still dont buy it-as you most probably know this particular bloodbath was supposed to be a diversion in support of the Somme offensive dreamt up by some British clown of a general called Haking comfortably ensconced in some chateau. Our Aussie cousins copped it the worst as depicted on the Australian War Memorial as best as I remember "the worst and most tragic 24hours in the history of the Australian Army"

Something I picked up from one of the guides was that Adolf H himself took part in this battle (read slaughter) at the time I didn't know that.

Well worth remembered by your post Rob!

Bob

 

[Rob]

Nice one Bob,sounds a good trip and I look forward to seeing it next year.

And I couldn't agree with you more my friend,don't tell the guys in the bar this, but I've stood in Sanctuary wood, and at the Serre memorial park and blubbed a wee bit myself mate. There is just something about the Somme and Ypres salient battlefields that gets me every time,the fact and statistics and the absolute silence moves me like nothing else does. My faourite spot on the whole Western front is the sunken lane on the Somme which is heartbreaking when you know exactly what happened on the very spot you are stood on.

Funny I just learned about Uncle Adolph at Fromelle from the good old BBC,can only wonder how different the world may have been if a Tommy could have only stuck his bayonet through the B***** at that time.

As for Mr Haig, well I'm not convinced either way to be honest mate, theres no doubting his mistakes especially on the Somme, at the least he should have been replaced before the slaughter the following year at Passchendaele,we all know he had friends in very high places.

However I just don't buy this 'Callous mass murderer' tag, I just do not believe he was evil like that, flawed yes, cold killer no. He was a proffesional soldier who wanted to do his job in the best way he knew how. Yes his attack plan was flawed and obsolete but I honestly laugh at the suggestion he happily sent thousands off to die with not another thought as he supped champagne. I think this image has been given high profile because of the w 'Lions led by Donkeys' and the classic but not realistic Black Adder goes forth. If you read his letters home and diaries its clear he was not some upper class killer with no feelings and his work for servicemen after the war was very good and there would be no Poppy appeal without him.

You've got me ranting about my fave subject now Bob

One final thing mate, I once talked to that superb WW1 Author Lynn Macdonald and she told me that the one thing all the Tomies hated the most and thought a great insult was the idea they were poor cannon fodder sent off to die at a whim, they believed in what they were doing a great deal.

Always good to get your view my friend.. don't get me started on WW1 executions!!

All the best

Rob

 

[Rob]

For anyone who can get the BBC news channel, the final burial of the 250 is taking place right now, very moving indeed.

Rob

 

[UKReb]

Rob

Agree-neither would I call them deliberate mass murderers more incompetent with an apparent inbred inability or downright obstinancy to grasp that their tactics were not suitable for a "modern" war.

I know, I know it's very easy for us arm-chair generals to win battles but how many years did it take for them to realise that an 11 hour artillery barrage (pre-the Formelles advance) before going over the top rarely budged the enemies second or third line of defence? But artillery in support of an infantry advance might just deliver a different result.

They rarely if ever learnt anything from history-one glance at US artillery manuals written by that great Union artillery virtuoso Henry Hunt might have given them a clue. Following the wholesale Union slaughter at Cold Harbor the failure of which was blamed on a deadly cross-fire of Reb artillery prompted Hunt to put pen to paper with the intent of either improving Napoleon's incompleted artillery charge or the early germ of an idea of a creeping barrage in support of an advance. True he never was able to put his ideas to practical use mainly due to CH being the last battle of Grant's Overland campaign and a completely different artillery conflict became necessary at Petersburg primarily using siege cannon and mortars.

Last thing on my mind Rob to wind you up on your fave subject but just reading the letters sent home from the survivors of Fromelles tends to raise my hackles or is it heckles? Only kidding mate

Bob

 

[Rob]

Rob

Agree-neither would I call them deliberate mass murderers more incompetent with an apparent inbred inability or downright obstinancy to grasp that their tactics were not suitable for a "modern" war.

I know, I know it's very easy for us arm-chair generals to win battles but how many years did it take for them to realise that an 11 hour artillery barrage (pre-the Formelles advance) before going over the top rarely budged the enemies second or third line of defence? But artillery in support of an infantry advance might just deliver a different result.

They rarely if ever learnt anything from history-one glance at US artillery manuals written by that great Union artillery virtuoso Henry Hunt might have given them a clue. Following the wholesale Union slaughter at Cold Harbor the failure of which was blamed on a deadly cross-fire of Reb artillery prompted Hunt to put pen to paper with the intent of either improving Napoleon's incompleted artillery charge or the early germ of an idea of a creeping barrage in support of an advance. True he never was able to put his ideas to practical use mainly due to CH being the last battle of Grant's Overland campaign and a completely different artillery conflict became necessary at Petersburg primarily using siege cannon and mortars.

Last thing on my mind Rob to wind you up on your fave subject but just reading the letters sent home from the survivors of Fromelles tends to raise my hackles or is it heckles? Only kidding mate

Bob

Absolutely agree Bob,one of the most obscene things about Passchendaele was that it came a year after Somme and repeated the mass slaughter if anything in worse conditions. There can be no doubt of Haig's stubborness and reluctance to embrace new technology at this time. In fact the disasters of these battles overshadow his work in the later part of the war in which lessons were finally learnt re infantry artillery cooperation.

Mind you Bob,just a couple of years earlier at Mons the Gerrmans came on at the British in a similar way the French did up the road at Waterloo, so what did we expect!

You certainly did not wind me up mate, I love talking about this subject and Haig and WW1 in general.As we've said before there are plenty of links between the ACW and WW1 as well.

Just watched the service at Fromelle and heard the final letters read out, truly heartbreaking. I for one can never in a million years imagine having to write and say goodbye to my wonderful missus before going over the top in some god awful French field to be scythed down by machine gun fire before I got ten yards.I never cease to be thankful for the men who made those sacrifices so I never had to.

All in all its a good life isn't it Bob?

Rob

 

[Louis Badolato]

Rob,

I'm with Bob (Reb) on this one. Haig needed to be able to declare a "victory" to save himself from being sacked - Parliament was screaming for his blood - and he attacked at Passchendaele to be able to declare that victory (he had all the church bells in England rung the day after the initial attack). He was perfectly willing to sacrifice 60,000 of his men to save his job. This despite the fact that the fields had been rendered impassable bogs by the shelling - a fact well known to the British high command for weeks prior to the attack.

His refusal to adopt new tactics merely demonstrated his incompetence, but Passchendaele demonstrated his ruthless lack of care for his own troops. Haig is, alongside the French high command, very high on my list of the murderously imcompetent, and the fact that there is a statue of him alongside the Statues of great British commanders like Bill Slim sickens me.

 

[Rob]

Rob,

I'm with Bob (Reb) on this one. Haig needed to be able to declare a "victory" to save himself from being sacked - Parliament was screaming for his blood - and he attacked at Passchendaele to be able to declare that victory (he had all the church bells in England rung the day after the initial attack). He was perfectly willing to sacrifice 60,000 of his men to save his job. This despite the fact that the fields had been rendered impassable bogs by the shelling - a fact well known to the British high command for weeks prior to the attack.

His refusal to adopt new tactics merely demonstrated his incompetence, but Passchendaele demonstrated his ruthless lack of care for his own troops. Haig is, alongside the French high command, very high on my list of the murderously imcompetent, and the fact that there is a statue of him alongside the Statues of great British commanders like Bill Slim sickens me.

Will have to disagree on this one mate. I don't think for one second Haig made that sort of choice, he believed he could do the job and had faith in himself and his men at Passchendaele, however flawed he was. This does not make him a callous murderer, its not the same thing at all, imcompetent yes willing killer absolutely not. He helped the British army adapt their tactics in those final vital years of the war and his determination to stand firm against the final German offensive helped turn it from disaster into an advance to Victory.

I am not for one second overlooking the terrible errors he made on the Somme and the following year, and he should have been sacked, but this does not make him an evil killer or Butcher. Many of his men held him in high regard and his campaigning for the veterans after the war raised their profile and launched the Poppy fund ( for many years known as the Haig fund).

None of us ever met the man, we can't possibly know he was happy sending thousands to their deaths, his letters home and affection for his troops point against this. We also cannot possibly imagine the pressure from all sides this man was under, for years the success or failure of Allied efforts on the Western front were in his hands. I think it a great insult to a man who did his duty (as he saw fit) to label him a cold hearted murderer who enjoyed doing it when there is absolutely no eveidence to suggest he did.

Rob

 

[Louis Badolato]

Rob,

I am certain that Haig did many good things for his troops after the war, and that many of his men held him in high esteem as a result.

The question I would put to you is, did, as every history of the battle I have encountered indicates, Haig and his staff know that shelling had destroyed the drainage in the area, and the ground was so impassable that horses were actually sinking in the bog and drowning? If he knew of the fact that the fields were virtually impassable, sending those men over the top is not merely refusing to learn from the mistakes of the Somme, it is launching an attack he knew had zero chance of success in order to save his job.

If this is true - and you would have better access to British Army intelligence reports than I would - I would have to ask you, how does sending men over the top into that bog to die in the tens of thousands constitute anything but depraved indifference to human life?

I don't know about English criminal law, but in the United States, included under second degree Murder is bringing about the death of one or more persons due to depraved indifference to human life. This is defined as intentionally committing an act which is not intended to cause the death of any specific person or persons, but which the person committing the act knows has a high probability of causing one or more persons to die.

I know I am going to be unpopular for saying this, but to me Haig should have been executed due to his depraved indifference for the lives of his troops, in the same way that MacArthur should have been executed for directly disobeying the lawful commands of Truman, his commander in chief, during the Korean War, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of American troops.

 

[jazzeum]

Looks like Louis beat me to it but I was going to say that what we are talking about is intentionally sending someone to their death as opposed to a wanton disregard for the recklessness of their conduct.

For example, if you get behind the wheel of a car and decide you are going to kill the first pedestrian you see that is murder. However, if you get behind the wheel of a car and you have a wanton disregard for the consequences of your action or are grossly negligent, that, too, is murder.

What we seem to have here is a wanton disregard for the consequences of his action, nothing short of murder.

 

[Rob]

Rob,

I am certain that Haig did many good things for his troops after the war, and that many of his men held him in high esteem as a result.

The question I would put to you is, did, as every history of the battle I have encountered indicates, Haig and his staff know that shelling had destroyed the drainage in the area, and the ground was so impassable that horses were actually sinking in the bog and drowning? If he knew of the fact that the fields were virtually impassable, sending those men over the top is not merely refusing to learn from the mistakes of the Somme, it is launching an attack he knew had zero chance of success in order to save his job.

If this is true - and you would have better access to British Army intelligence reports than I would - I would have to ask you, how does sending men over the top into that bog to die in the tens of thousands constitute anything but depraved indifference to human life?

I don't know about English criminal law, but in the United States, included under second degree Murder is bringing about the death of one or more persons due to depraved indifference to human life. This is defined as intentionally committing an act which is not intended to cause the death of any specific person or persons, but which the person committing the act knows has a high probability of causing one or more persons to die.

I know I am going to be unpopular for saying this, but to me Haig should have been executed due to his depraved indifference for the lives of his troops, in the same way that MacArthur should have been executed for directly disobeying the lawful commands of Truman, his commander in chief, during the Korean War, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of American troops.

But Louis,sending men over the top into deep bogs of mud is what they did in those days.As I said to Bob earlier,just two years earlier the two amies were fighting in a not dissimilar way to that at Waterloo a hundred years earlier.We can judge it now and say 'how could he do it' but he probably saw this as what he had to do. And the whole idea was to kill and drive the Germans from French and Belgian soil, so yes casualties were inevitable as they always are in warfare, and some of his decisions are deplorable in their incompetance but I still think that is not the same as coldly deciding to kill thousands to keep his job. Try and imagine the pressure from all directions this man was under to get the job done, French government,British PM, British government and public opinion and his friend the King.

Also it is perhaps a lot to expect that one man change the whole doctrine of the British army in the time span from the Somme to Passchendaele, he did change it towards the end of the war and no one ever mentions his success in this period. I just think the 'Butcher ' image is wrong and has been discredited over the years, sacked absolutely, executed that would be wrong in my book, if nothing else for what he did after Passchendaele.

Rob

 

[Lewey Gun Vick]

Rob,
I don't know about English criminal law, but in the United States, included under second degree Murder is bringing about the death of one or more persons due to depraved indifference to human life. This is defined as intentionally committing an act which is not intended to cause the death of any specific person or persons, but which the person committing the act knows has a high probability of causing one or more persons to die.

I've been following this thread with curiosity, but I'm hoping Louis can clarify something from the above statement for me. If second degree murder can be defined as the highlighted statement above then would it not be conceivable that you could then charge any military leader with the murder as they would have "ordered" the deaths of their troops in combat. For example couldn't you then apply this to Maj. Richard Winters since he in these terms, is responsible for the death of Pvt. John D. Hall during the Brecourt Manor assualt, since Hall was under Winters direct command during the assualt?

Regards,
Vick

 

[aujj65]

For those of us in the UK, at 8pm C4 there is a documentary, on WW1: Finding the Lost Battalions, chronicles the discovery of the bodies and tells the story of how they were identified, also follows three British families hoping to find out if their relatives are among the dead.

Jeff

 

[Louis Badolato]

I've been following this thread with curiosity, but I'm hoping Louis can clarify something from the above statement for me. If second degree murder can be defined as the highlighted statement above then would it not be conceivable that you could then charge any military leader with the murder as they would have "ordered" the deaths of their troops in combat. For example couldn't you then apply this to Maj. Richard Winters since he in these terms, is responsible for the death of Pvt. John D. Hall during the Brecourt Manor assualt, since Hall was under Winters direct command during the assualt?

Regards,
Vick

Vick,

There is a big difference between knowing there is a reasonable risk that an action will get someone killed, but with a reasonable chance of achieving a military goal, and knowing with certainty that there is no chance of success and an absolute certainty of tens of thousands of deaths, and still ordering the action. The first is the heavy responsibility of command that weighs on each and every officer who has served in each and every army since the dawn of time, the second is the type of disastrous hubris that marked the British and French high command during WWI.

 

[Lewey Gun Vick]

Vick,

There is a big difference between knowing there is a reasonable risk that an action will get someone killed, but with a reasonable chance of achieving a military goal, and knowing with certainty that there is no chance of success and an absolute certainty of tens of thousands of deaths, and still ordering the action. The first is the heavy responsibility of command that weighs on each and every officer who has served in each and every army since the dawn of time, the second is the type of disastrous hubris that marked the British and French high command during WWI.

Louis, Thanks for the clarification!

Regards,
Vick

 

[UKReb]

We have chewed over this subject before and I have no doubt there will always remains a clear blue space between the likes of mine and Louis's views and those of Rob's.

Haig was a well bred Victorian gentleman (his father owned the Haig whisky distilleries) making him well placed in high society. He was a man of very few words who despised and distrusted all politicians (a trait some of us share today). But he was an appallingly slow learner as was his general staff during that conflict-he knew the PM Lloyd George wanted him sacked but he also knew (via King George V) that the prime minister was not strong enough to do it and there lies the real tragedy of the horrors of Passchendaele.

However, from August 1918 the British Army won a series of victories unmatched in our military history. Today they are all but forgotten except by military historians and Rob whilst the earlier bloodbaths are well documented and hence remembered

Reb

 

[Rob]

We have chewed over this subject before and I have no doubt there will always remains a clear blue space between the likes of mine and Louis's views and those of Rob's.

Haig was a well bred Victorian gentleman (his father owned the Haig whisky distilleries) making him well placed in high society. He was a man of very few words who despised and distrusted all politicians (a trait some of us share today). But he was an appallingly slow learner as was his general staff during that conflict-he knew the PM Lloyd George wanted him sacked but he also knew (via King George V) that the prime minister was not strong enough to do it and there lies the real tragedy of the horrors of Passchendaele.

However, from August 1918 the British Army won a series of victories unmatched in our military history. Today they are all but forgotten except by military historians and Rob whilst the earlier bloodbaths are well documented and hence remembered

Reb

Well said Bob, and its because over the years some historians/authors have wanted to continue the Lions led by Donkeys myth that the later victories are totally and conveniently forgotten, and its for those Victories Haig has his statue and is today judged in a more even manner.

Rob

 

[Louis Badolato]

We have chewed over this subject before and I have no doubt there will always remains a clear blue space between the likes of mine and Louis's views and those of Rob's.

Haig was a well bred Victorian gentleman (his father owned the Haig whisky distilleries) making him well placed in high society. He was a man of very few words who despised and distrusted all politicians (a trait some of us share today). But he was an appallingly slow learner as was his general staff during that conflict-he knew the PM Lloyd George wanted him sacked but he also knew (via King George V) that the prime minister was not strong enough to do it and there lies the real tragedy of the horrors of Passchendaele.

However, from August 1918 the British Army won a series of victories unmatched in our military history. Today they are all but forgotten except by military historians and Rob whilst the earlier bloodbaths are well documented and hence remembered

Reb

Bob,

As a big fan of the U.S. Civil War, your magnificent threads have demonstrated that in the 1860's, at places like Cold Harbor, another of history's butchers, U.S. Grant, took the over the top and bleed them white approach to modern warfare to eke out a victory over Bobby Lee's confederates. However, it was 1860, and nobody had figured out alternatives yet. The rebels were firing muzzle loading rifles, not machine guns. The use of barbed wire was much more limited. There were no tanks available to Grant to use to overcome machinguns. There was not a prior example of this kind of warfare to study to see the supremecy of the defenders. Yet despite all this, and despite the fact that he won his total victory without the assistance of Allies arriving at the very end of the war to help turn the tide, Grant is remembered as a butcher, not as a great general.

I would respectfully assert that it is far more fair to remember Douglas Haig as a butcher than U.S. Grant. Haig had airpower to perform recon for him - but Haig and members of his staff were quoted as saying that cavalry was the preferred method of gathering intelligence. Haig had motorized transport and far greater use of trains for logistical support. Haig had tanks, which although new and unreliable, when massed could overcome the advantages of machinguns and barbed wire. Haig had the U.S. Civil War and the Franco Prussian war as templates to show what mistakes not to make. Haig had the disasters of the Somme to teach him what his men could and could not accomplish. Haig had knowledge that the fields at Passchendaele were an impassable quagmire. Haig had the arrival of fresh American troops to assist him in his final drive to victory. Yet despite all of this, his butcher bill puts Grant's to shame. For me, Lions led by donkeys is about as accurate an assessment of the WWI Allies as there ever can be.

 

[Rob]

Tanks,recon, all of that was but nothing in the slurry of Passchendaele,the mud was so deep even artillery was nullified, Haig was tasked with shifting the Germans off that ridge, the Germans of course were on foreign soil and as a result had to be moved by force,facts is facts however unpleasant it was only ever going to be achieved one way, I doubt any of us could have done any better.

Donkey's is also an insult to many of the officer class who did a **** fine job in horrendous conditions.

Rob

 

[Northgate Woods]

Gentlemen,
The names of Haig and Gough are not ones we like to use in Australia. The senior Officer class of that era saw many good young Aussie, Kiwi, Canadian and Pommy died needlessly.
"LEST WE FORGET"
The Land Downunder Salutes Them.
Cheers Howard