Passchendaele

[rockershovel]

It's curious how campaigns are remembered, or forgotten subsequently. The final phase of the First World War, the Hundred Days, saw huge battles and great loss of life, but is little remembered now. The Normandy campaign of 1944-5 saw losses proportionately equal to anything in WW1 - around 5% of those who came ashore in Normandy, survived in action at VE Day, and men like my father were being recalled to second- or third-echelon service despite being classified "unfit for further service" in Italy; yet that is rarely appreciated today.

 

Dieppe is remembered as a great disaster, although quite a small operation; but the earlier Operation Torch, the astonishing feat of invading North Africa from America, culminating in the junction of two armies fighting from East and West, and a German surrender in Tunisia larger than Stalingrad - is virtually forgotten today.

Edited August 1, 2017 by rockershovel

[Ozexpatriate]

It's curious how campaigns are remembered, or forgotten subsequently.

There's no linearity proportional to casualty count or strategic objective that measures the emotional reaction to such events, even more so over time.

 

Australians grieve over a generation of young men lost to the great war, but measured in hard casualty data versus population, Australia suffered less than some other nations, France more than most.  Based on data that I saw, Serbia lost the most (measured against their population).

 

At the end of the day, data doesn't tell the story of the heartbreak.

 

Lest we forget all those sacrifices made.

Edited August 1, 2017 by Ozexpatriate

[Guius]

Many who survived the mechanised slaughter of the conflict succumbed to the Spanish Flu epidemic that swept the world in 1918, in its turn, accounting for a higher number of dead than the war its self, mostly in Asia and the Indian sub-continent.

 

Guy

[rockershovel]

Many who survived the mechanised slaughter of the conflict succumbed to the Spanish Flu epidemic that swept the world in 1918, in its turn, accounting for a higher number of dead than the war its self, mostly in Asia and the Indian sub-continent.

 

Guy

Indeed. The USSR and its successor states make great play of Soviet losses in WW2, but the two decades of civil war, famine and deliberate dispossession, chaos and mass arrest which preceded it, remain a taboo subject.

 

Third Ypres was impacted both by this (bearing in mind that the Czar was ousted in the May Revolution, and the Western Allies still hoped to keep the Kerensky administration in the war), and the mutiny and loss of command in the French army (which the Germans never appear to have understood to be taking place).

 

Leaving aside the questionable strategic goals, there was an influential body of strategic thought that regarded the simple fact of a major offensive being in existence, as a crucial aspect of the conduct of the war at that time. It may, or may not have been true that the offensive had no credible or achievable goals; but some felt that this was secondary.

Edited August 2, 2017 by rockershovel

[The Stationmaster]

There's no linearity proportional to casualty count or strategic objective that measures the emotional reaction to such events, even more so over time.

 

Australians grieve over a generation of young men lost to the great war, but measured in hard casualty data versus population, Australia suffered less than some other nations, France more than most.  Based on data that I saw, Serbia lost the most (measured against their population).

 

At the end of the day, data doesn't tell the story of the heartbreak.

 

Lest we forget all those sacrifices made.

 

You might find it interesting to read this.  While it doesn't say so I think it likely that as a percentage of male population Australia suffered more grievously than many other nations

 

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/why-the-numbers-of-our-wwi-dead-are-wrong-20140428-zr0v5.html

[Leander]

NZR loco commemorating the fallen of 1914-18.

 

[Ozexpatriate]

You might find it interesting to read this.  While it doesn't say so I think it likely that as a percentage of male population Australia suffered more grievously than many other nations

 

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/why-the-numbers-of-our-wwi-dead-are-wrong-20140428-zr0v5.html

Thank you Mike.

 

It is precisely because of the statistical anomalies in counting casualties that I think it can be misleading to even consider a metrics-based approach to the sacrifices made. Besides, and more importantly, there are truths beyond body counts.

 

The impact of the Great War on Australia was a wrenching shock. At the outset of the war, Australia was a young optimistic nation, not fully 14 years old and ready to do it's part for King and Empire. History tells us that the First Lord of the Admiralty's strategy was over ambitious, (though but for the fog of war, I think it was less foolish than it was poorly implemented). Besides the Dardanelles, Australians of course fought in Flanders (including Passchendaele and Ypres in general), Palestine and other theatres.

 

It has long been represented in Australia that the sacrifices made by the young nation equaled or exceeded that of the European nations.  I did look into this at one point with some cursory examination.

 

Trying to cut through the fog of conflicting casualty data, and using recorded military deaths (as opposed to other incapacity*) I found that (based on the linked data) relative to the total population, one French soldier died for every 28 French people. That by itself is monumentally staggering.  In comparison, one Australian soldier died for every 73 Australians** and one British soldier died for every 51 Britons. One German soldier died for every 32 Germans. One New Zealand soldier died for every 61 New Zealanders.

 

* I do not intend to diminish the impact to the lives of survivors who suffered from what today would be called post-traumatic stress disorder, which in my mind cannot have been far from the lives of any survivor of the Western Front.

 

** Based on a population of 4.5 million

 

These numbers all have a roughly comparable order of magnitude. I do think that trying to "rank" the trauma of the Great War by country is not useful, but data always provides some context. With the the perspective of a century of hindsight, the appalling hubris of the Great Powers continues to shock, particularly given the example of the carnage set by the US Civil War 49 years earlier where one American soldier died for every 50 Americans. (Of course that covered both sides.) The Siege of Petersburg was very much a foretaste of the Western Front and included trench warfare with extensive artillery and mining.

 

Then of course there are sacrifices we don't usually think about. In total, more soldiers of the British Indian Army died than did Australian soldiers. They fought in places as varied as Mesopotamia, German East Africa and Palestine, and like most Empire troops, some served on the Western Front as well.

 

I think it's worth noting that the carnage of the Civil War carried the same cultural gravity in the US by the turn of the 20^th century as remembrances of the Great War did in Europe and the British Empire after that war. It remains part of the reason that Memorial Day a public holiday for most whereas Veterans' Day (November 11) is not observed as a holiday by most companies (though it is a Federal holiday).

Edited August 2, 2017 by Ozexpatriate

[Penlan]

* I do not intend to diminish the impact to the lives of survivors who suffered from what today would be called post-traumatic stress disorder, which in my mind cannot have been far from the lives of any survivor of the Western Front.

I haven't read all the earlier posts here yet, but this caught my eye.

I can well remember in the early 60's old men who where suffering from WW1 'Shell Shock', quivering all the time, they were in a poor state, physically and in health, the NHS wasn't that long ago formed by then, and the Welfare state.......

In London in the late 40's early 50's my Grandfather would never talk of WW1, if asked about it - like any young lad would do - he would go into a period of not talking, moody, and a clip round my ear from my Nan for asking about it..

 

Sandy Croall - Poppy Appeal Officer, West Cornwall.

[Penlan]

A long time ago, I was told that the day was changed to the nearest Sunday after the end of WWII because WWII did not end on 11th November and as Remembrance day was extended to cover the dead of both wars, 

... and the many conflicts since where we have lost Service personnel.  

In this Village they are from the North Yeman Civil War (from 1962) and Afghanistan conflicts. 

[Penlan]

I came across a reference the other day, that stated when the Canadians came to relieve some troops in Sept/Oct at Passchendaele, they moved into the same trenches (more or less) they had vacated 2 years earlier.

 

The number of casualties is a difficult one, I've tried to find out the numbers, difficult to nearest 1,000.
This was for the Service I conducted last Sunday, a small Village, but we had over a 100 people gathered around the War Memorial..

 

Sandy Croall - Poppy Appeal Officer, West Cornwall.

[eastglosmog]

.........

In London in the late 40's early 50's my Grandfather would never talk of WW1, if asked about it - like any young lad would do - he would go into a period of not talking, moody, and a clip round my ear from my Nan for asking about it..

 

Sandy Croall - Poppy Appeal Officer, West Cornwall.

My grandfather was the same.  He joined up in 1914 and served until the end in 1918.  He never spoke about it to his grandchildren and (according to my mother) hardly ever to his own children even when they were grown up.  All I learnt was that at one time, his mate was blown to bits next to him when they were driving a wagon.

Still, I have to admit to a certain ambivalence to whether the Great War was worth it.  Had Grandfather not joined up in 1914, he would have gone out to New Zealand to join the rest of his siblings.  This was before he met my Grandmother, so without the Great War, I wouldn't exist!

[DougN]

Well, I am of a different generation, Both of my grandfathers were in WW2, one a regular army the other a medic and volunteer. It is the latter I have found out more information from my father on. My father read a history of the Kokoda track and tried to discuss what his father had seen and done. The comment was "I was never there" Even though the evidence showed he must have been in that a particular area. So the entire 5 years was wiped from the memory or so difficult to deal with my grand father would never speak of it. He passed away approximately 11 years ago at the age of 95. I have since discussed with my father his views of ANZAC day which is Australia's public holiday and his views. My grandfather stated early on he would never march, or had any interest in meeting up again with his companions. This was similar to my other grandfather who I remember never had anything to do with the commemorations, or for that matter my grandmother who was a WAAF.

 

Commemorations on a remembrance day appear now to be for the younger generations who match and gather. Personally I will not attend any commemorations on behalf of my grand parents who chose not to in their own way. 

 

Interestingly I look through my family history. I have a great grandfather I have a suspicion left the UK to avoid the entire conflict, went to South Africa and then ended up in Australia in the early 1920's and I can't figure out what the others were doing around the time of the WW1. Nothing had ever been mentioned with in the family! 

[rockershovel]

One point which is rarely discussed, but seems to me to be relevant is that the English speaking world commemorates the great wars of the 1815 to 1945 period because to a great extent, they can be regarded as wars started by others, in which the English speaking world defined itself and achieved practical and ideological goals which remain relevant today.

 

Waterloo marked the definitive end of a revolutionary phase which had transformed France, and threatened Europe for two decades. It also marked the end of the great phase of expansionary conflict between the English speaking world and the European powers. Britain would not raise another major field army for a century, but become the greatest empire ever seen, with consequences we see every day.

 

The American Civil War remains relevant to Americans because in many respects, from their Federal government structure to their paper currency, the nation they still inhabit was forged in those years.

 

The Byzantine causes of the First World War are essentially about expansionism among the land empires of Continental Europe. Without the mass citizen armies of France and the Central Powers, the war could not have begun or continued. The nascent nations of the Dominions of the British Empire, notably Australia, New Zealand and Canada, took their modern forms from this conflict.

 

The Second World War, in this view, was essentially and definitively about defending the political and structural integrity of the United Kingdom, and its Empire, from German expansionism. This ultimately failed, but that failure defined much of what happened between 1945 and the 1990s. There are, for example (and reverting to the EU issue for a moment) more British nationals employed in Canada alone, than in the whole EU, as far as can be determined. The wholesale migration of the British working classes and lower middle classes (and the numbers are remarkable) between 1945 and about 1965, took place almost entirely within the English speaking world.

 

Hence the continuity of view. The British commemorate Canadians killed at Vimy, and American pilots killed over Europe. There are no German equivalents of Tyne Cot or the American Cemetery near Cambridge. There is no German or French equivalent of Wellington, although you might argue that Rommel was the German version of Lee.

 

On another level, the "free trade" zealots of the current crisis are the ideological, and in some cases the literal heirs and successors of the great expansion of the nineteenth century. George Bush senior was the last WW2 veteran to hold public office as an elected head of State in the Western world, and Prince Phillip is undoubtedly the last WW2 veteran still in uniform.

[Barry O]

Without Blucher and his Prussians Wellington would have struggled at Waterloo...or had you forgotten that?

 

Langermark in Belgium is a large German Cemetery, It does contain soldiers from its allies.

 

Please stop trying to take this thread into your political stance on another area. This is about commemoration of the human impact on all parties of a particularly gruesome battle.

 

Baz

[Bernard Lamb]

Without Blucher and his Prussians Wellington would have struggled at Waterloo.

The other side of that is the respect that they still have around Leipzig for the help provided by The Essex Regiment and William Congreve and his rockets in the battle against Napoleon.

 

Regarding relative casualty figures let us remember the city of Manila, I am sure I have mentioned it previously. One of the most devastated places on earth, but hardly ever mentioned. Spare a thought also for the millions of Romusha worked to death by the Japanese. Again an almost taboo subject.

Bernard

[rockershovel]

Without Blucher and his Prussians Wellington would have struggled at Waterloo...or had you forgotten that?

Langermark in Belgium is a large German Cemetery, It does contain soldiers from its allies.

Please stop trying to take this thread into your political stance on another area. This is about commemoration of the human impact on all parties of a particularly gruesome battle.

Baz

I don't disagree with any of the individual points, but you present them out of context. My point is that there is an overall continuity of view in the English speaking world, directly relevant to events at Passchendaele, and the perception of them, then and since.

 

Rather than abstract phrases about "commemoration of human impact" of events quite beyond the experience of most people now living, perhaps you might explain how you regard this commemoration as being expressed, and why it continues?

 

Because it DOES continue, for reasons which people clearly regard as relevant. The late Labour government introduced Armed Forces Day, yet the people did not embrace it, and attendances and observances in November continue to increase. Why is this?

 

A younger family member recently visited Canada, where he was hosted by a family he'd never met, who showed him a faded album of siblings of people I can barely remember, as proof of common heritage. One if those depicted, appears on the Thiepval Memorial.

 

A few years ago, I hosted and assisted an elderly American, at the request of people I have never actually met, whose family connections date from the 1930s and whose grandparents left the UK in about 1948. Our visitor wanted to visit the Madingley Cemetery while he was still able. They clearly felt this was a reasonable request, and I was pleased to assist. He was particularly pleased also, to visit a "genuine English pub" which had a signed certificate in the bar from members of the 8th Air Force who had visited some years before.

[The Stationmaster]

Interestingly both of my grandfathers went through the Great War and, thankfully returned, although my paternal grandfather was in any case deferred and didn't join up until, I think, mid-late 1915.  He was definitely at the 3rd Battle of Ypres as he lost his best friend one night when they were in a carrying party and his friend fell into a shell hole full of water and vanished but he never said anything of that extended battle.  However a year or so before he died he did mention a Canadian officer who had sent him back after he'd become detached from his unit (which had probably ceased to exist) and that meant he avoided a gas attack - but I don't know which particular battle that was.  His main talk about that war seemed to be about the time they were out of the front line - which meant still in range of shelling and often going up nightly on carrying parties, which could be even more dangerous than being in front line trenches (something we tend to forget).  Maybe his remembering times out of the front line is not surprising as British troops in normal circumstances spent no more than a third of their time in the front line and sometimes even less.

 

His brother, my great uncle, served throughout the war in the Canadian Army coming over with the first Canadian arrivals on the Western Front (into the front line in January 1915) and spending the rest of the war there taking part in all the major battles including the Somme, Vimy Ridge, Passchendaele, and the 100 Days. He was clearly a man who got involved in the action as he was awarded the Military Medal for taking a German position single-handed and finished up as a Company Sarn't Major.  Obviously a lucky man for coming through physically unscathed he never, certainly to me, said a single word about that war although he'd obviously seen some of the worst fighting on the Western Front.

 

My maternal grandfather also went through most of it although from what I can trace he didn't spend all his war on the Western Front and his unit was definitely at Gallipoli although I'm not entirely sure if he was.  However he was in France by the time of the 1918 German offensives and for the 100 Days allied offensive.  Again he never said much other than to express considerable loathing and distrust of the French (which, I think, would fit with his being there during the 1918 German offensives) and far greater trust in the Germans than the French.  No physical scars but - more than anything else - a great feeling against what he saw, no doubt rightly, as the brutality with which many horses were treated and that extended to some British officers; a stark reminder than humans weren't the only sufferers in warfare. 

 

So perhaps all in all a 'lucky' family although a great uncle by marriage suffered the effects of a gassing until he died some 40 years after the war had ended, I still have his cigarette case complete with a German rifle bullet embedded in it, and a cousin of my paternal grandfather was killed although I know not where.  But again the theme comes through - even in their later years all of the men I knew who had been there had very little to say about it and kept whatever horrors they might still have held to themselves.

[62613]

Without Blucher and his Prussians Wellington would have struggled at Waterloo...or had you forgotten that?

 

Langermark in Belgium is a large German Cemetery, It does contain soldiers from its allies.

 

Please stop trying to take this thread into your political stance on another area. This is about commemoration of the human impact on all parties of a particularly gruesome battle.

 

Baz

 

 There is no German or French equivalent of Wellington, although you might argue that Rommel was the German version of Lee.

 

 

Sorry, no. Had there been no Prussian army for Napoleon to worry about, then Wellington's army (25,000 British, out of 92,000) would have been defeated. The Blucher/Gneisnau combination had achieved an advance all the way from The Katzbach, in Silesia, to Paris over the previous two years. had Wellington had to control an army of the size than Napoleon's became after about 1808, he would have faced the same problems.

[Barry O]

My grandfather - wounded on Day 3 of the Somme and then patched up by the Germans and a POW for the rest of the war and my father - a RAFVR wireless operator/Air Gunner/dispatcher for 7 years during WW2 (and he could have stayed at home due to being in a particular job at our local coal mine) didn't attend Remembrance Day activities as they had some painful memories of their experiences. Now we have developed, across our Commonwealth, a need to remember those who have given their lives or health for us all to safe at home.

 

Why do we remember them?

 

With proud thanksgiving, a mother for her children,
England mourns for her dead across the sea.
Flesh of her flesh they were, spirit of her spirit,
Fallen in the cause of the free.

 

For the Fallen - Robert Laurence Binyon

 

Note  that when it was written England was a catch all for the huge umpire we had.

 

Baz

[rockershovel]

Interesting point about time actually "up the line".

 

I had a great-uncle who served through the whole thing, having been a pre-1914 Regular. He often spoke of it, although rarely of actual action. He also had a collection of documents, photos and diaries which he hoped might someday be collated, and I helped in this towards the end of his life, when it clearly troubled him that it might be forgotten.

 

From memory, he actually served around 120 days in the front line, over 51 months (July 1914 to Nov 1918). He served around twice that period in second-line and support, another 300 days or so in reserve; a total of 22 months under fire, within range of fire or within the deployment cycle.

 

He spent around 180 days on courses, 90 to 100 days in hospital with minor injuries or sickness, bringing the total to 32 months at most.

 

The odd thing was, he seemed to have no account of the remaining time. He DID speak of interminable marching and "standing by" in camp, train journeys lasting several days over quite short distances. He also spent indeterminate periods with rear-echelon units, particularly Q Branch. He had two home leaves in that time, totalling three weeks. But around 18 months in four years, appear to have been absorbed in what might be regarded as "friction in the system".

[rockershovel]

There is no German or French equivalent of Wellington, although you might argue that Rommel was the German version of Lee.

 

 

Sorry, no. Had there been no Prussian army for Napoleon to worry about, then Wellington's army (25,000 British, out of 92,000) would have been defeated. The Blucher/Gneisnau combination had achieved an advance all the way from The Katzbach, in Silesia, to Paris over the previous two years. had Wellington had to control an army of the size than Napoleon's became after about 1808, he would have faced the same problems.

True, but I don't see the relevance in context.

 

The point I was attempting to make, was that Wellington remained a public figure for many years to come, largely as a result of his military achievements in the Peninsula and Flanders bringing him to the foreground. Gneisenau and Blucher are fascinating characters in their own right, though, and Gneisenau's subsequent career was akin to Wellingtons, although shorter, and in a society where politics and the military were inseparable.

[Guest CLARENCE]

True, but I don't see the relevance in context.

 

The point I was attempting to make, was that Wellington remained a public figure for many years to come, largely as a result of his military achievements in the Peninsula and Flanders bringing him to the foreground. Gneisenau and Blucher are fascinating characters in their own right, though, and Gneisenau's subsequent career was akin to Wellingtons, although shorter, and in a society where politics and the military were inseparable.

Forgive me, but isn't this thread supposed to be about the Battle of Passchendaele and its impact on this country, then and now? Interesting it might be to some to hear about important military figures and historic battles of the past. I for one, am remembering and trying to understand the appalling loss of life among "ordinary" people who became soldiers, many of them unwillingly who died in 1917, my Grandad among them- his body was never found, just disappeared into a sea of mud.

 

David.

Edited August 3, 2017 by CLARENCE

[rockershovel]

I don't believe that it is either possible, or useful to "attempt to comprehend" an event so far behind the experience of those who endured it, that many of them could never make sense of it. My great-uncle kept far more records than most, and spoke often of the period; but I don't believe he ever "understood" it.

 

My feeling is that the long term effects of Paschendaele, and other such actions can be seen around us, every day. Most of all in the NHS, sometimes described as "the nearest thing the English have, to a national religion". Universal suffrage, regardless of property qualification, came about for men in 1918 - a direct result of the War, one of the few elements of "a land fit for heroes to live in" that was actually delivered at that time. The election of a Labour government in 1924, was the result - previously unthinkable, and leading directly to full suffrage in 1928, and the Labour administration of 1945 and the "New Jerusalem" of the Welfare State and full employment as a primary policy goal.

 

Another unspoken question, is why the British did not enter WW2 on behalf of France, their supposed ally of 1914-18 and the subject of a clear and present threat from Germany. Why DID the government mobilise troops to France, supposedly on behalf of a nation it had no realistic way to assist? My late father was always quite clear on this - that the spectre of a return to Vimy, Arras and Ypres could not be put before the people or the Commons.

 

The image of "the trenches" is all-pervasive, even today. One of the great comic grotesques of modern times, a cynical infantry officer and his hapless companions, is placed there because he could be nowhere else, and achieve the same effect.

 

The dead, and those who returned placed their hand on daily life, and we live with the results.

[The Stationmaster]

Forgive me, but isn't this thread supposed to be about the Battle of Passchendaele and its impact on this country, then and now? Interesting it might be to some to hear about important military figures and historic battles of the past. I for one, am remembering and trying to understand the appalling loss of life among "ordinary" people who became soldiers, many of them unwillingly who died in 1917, my Grandad among them- his body was never found, just disappeared into a sea of mud.

 

David.

 

The interesting thing is where 'unwilling' did, or didn't, come into the picture.  Clearly nobody was willing to be killed, or seriously wounded, or maimed for what remained of their life, but overall some figures suggest that around only 35% of the army's total Great War manpower had actually been compelled to serve as a result of the January 1916 Military Service Act etc although roundly 90,000 due to be conscripted under that legislation failed to enlist between January and July 1916.

 

Overall then roughly two thirds of those who served in the army in the Great War were there because they chose to be - be it either as wartime volunteers, attested under the Derby Scheme, or serving with the colours or in the reserve prior to the war.  Many who joined prior to 1916 saw it as a great adventure or volunteered out of a sense of patriotism while some continued to join for such reasons after the 1916 Act but were counted as conscripted.

 

It can of course be easily argued that many hadn't got a clue what they were getting themselves into but at the same time by simply volunteering for military service they must have understood that they were more than likely to be shot at even if they didn't know, or were unable to imagine. what an artillery barrage was like.  Similarly even if attracted to the 'adventure' of the so called 'open warfare' of the early and final periods of the war the fact was that such periods were as dangerous, and at times far more so, than trench warfare.

 

It is then pertinent to ask what reaction would have been to the coming of a major operation such as the Somme battles of 1916 or 3rd Ypres in 1917?   For those who hadn't previously experienced such a thing and didn't have the experience of others with past experience to guide the simple answer must have been that they didn't know what to expect.  And indeed the early stages of the Somme battle showed that the inexperience of the 'New Army' battalions went some way towards contributing to casualty figures although nowhere near to the same extent as inadequate artillery preparation and development of the attack techniques that were common place in the 100 Days attacks of 1918.  The Generals were no doubt probably as inexperienced in siege warfare and how to break out of it as many of the men under their command.

 

This could in turn lead to questioning the attitude of the average Tommy to the 3rd Battle of Ypres in 1917 but I think it has to be seen in context.  It followed the extremely successful Messines Ridge attack earlier that year and equipment and supplies of ammunition - especially artillery shells - were better.  And the battle started relatively successfully until within days the rain, and of course the damage caused by that very heavy artillery bombardment, began to turn the battlefield into a quagmire.  But inevitably even 'relatively successfully' meant that men died, were wounded or were maimed for life - that was a sad fact of warfare and always had been.  The only thing which today is not so easy to comprehend is that casualty figures were so high - but that was in many respects a consequence of huge numbers of men taking part in the attacks and the advance because it was a war of men as much as of machines.  

 

Whether or not by mid - late 1917 the British army had responded to the same extent as the German army in making changes to suit the new form of warfare is a debatable point.  German infantry tactics changed considerably following the Somme not only in creating defences in ever greater depth but by starting to move away from the concept of a continuous trench line with an increasing emphasis on strongpoints and flexible defence instead.  The British in reality had learnt that lesson by 1918 and they certainly refined their methods of attack very considerably between the end of 3rd Ypres at Passchendaele and the start of the 100 Days campaign in the following year - but still men died in large numbers, that was the nature of war alas as it was then fought.

 

So what were the alternatives?  The Somme campaign of 1916 was clearly started too early and without full preparation and involved inadequately trained troops - mainly as a consequence of the need to bring the attack forward to relieve pressure on Verdun.  3rd Ypres was seemingly not brought forward and was a logical campaign to gain control of the high ground to the east of the town and, ever hopefully, present an opportunity to break out of the trench war and cut off the Belgian Channel ports which were in German hands while improving the cover of the Channel ports and supply lines that the British army relied on.  Strategically and tactically it can I think be fairly argued that even with limited success 3rd Ypres could deliver advantages for the British army in particular but in addition, with the French army effectively out of offensive operations following the April mutiny, it also kept up pressure on the Germans, and critically so before they had a chance to move troops westwards as Russia collapsed.  The latter might even have been a factor in keeping the battle going once it began to founder in the Flanders mud but equally - just as on the Somme a year previously - there must undoubtedly have been the temptation and tactical logic to 'get to the crest of the hill' and help get Ypres out of direct observation for enemy artillery fire. 

 

Why was, and is, it so remembered?  The most obvious reason is of course the numbers but for those who were there it probably wasn't about that but more a matter of not letting-down their mates  (which is why so many soldiers of the Great War kept going) and the terrible conditions hence they remembered the series of battles of 3rd Ypres for that reason.  Far more stark I suspect to - like my grandfather - remember more readily the loss of a mate due to those conditions rather than the more obvious matter of losing someone to enemy action. Another reason I suspect is because - probably more so than the 'citizens' new army' which played such a pivotal role on the first day of the Somme battle - the British (including the Dominions) army which fought 3rd Ypres was far more of an experienced and professional army and thus looked on the series of battles with the jaundiced (and probably cynical?) eye of experienced soldiers who had already either 'done it all' or who were serving alongside and learning from those who had.  That army could perhaps deal with as a hazard of the job the consequences of shot and shell more readily than they could fighting a stinking quagmire. 

[F-UnitMad]

... the long term effects of Paschendaele, .... the spectre of a return to Vimy, Arras and Ypres could not be put before the people or the Commons.

 

 

WW1 definitely affected British policy in the 1920s & 30s, including appeasement. I can't recall if it was "Bomber" Harris or someone else who spoke about people not wanting to return to a "Flanders bloodbath", I'm sure it was an RAF type anyway as it was said in support of strategic bombing; somewhat ironic then that for much of WW2, Bomber Command was almost the equivalent of the Infantry of WW1; "over the top when the man says" = "the Bomber will always get through", with attendant losses as a result.