MOVIES FOR MY SONS, 02: AWESOME FATHERS

I watched a couple more, familiar flicks that make the list. Again, there are several criteria to make the list, but the main one is a strong, admirable male protagonist . . . someone about whom I don’t mind saying: “Son, if you grow up to be like so and so, I’m OK with that.”

            For this entry, we have a couple of bona-fide father figures.

“A Man for All Seasons” (1966)
            Features: Paul Scofield, Robert Shaw, Orson Welles, and Leo McKern. Directed by Fred Zinnemann.

Snapshot:      
            A terrific portrayal of classic “unstoppable force meets immovable object.”

Plot:               
            In a historical drama, Sir Thomas More tries to steer a knife’s edge course between publicly supporting or opposing the famous/infamous Henry VIII of England.

Content:
            Very clean.
            -Those who already understand “the birds and the bees” will catch the references to the king’s aberrant proclivities, but innocent audience members will not be shown or told anything remotely inappropriate.    
            -The Duke of Norfolk is the least clean character, but even that is saying much. He uses the D-word a couple of times, and tries to punch More at one point.

Quality of Entertainment:
            Mature audiences (13+)  should be able to catch on to the movie’s drama, and find it quite engaging and compelling.
            Tomatoes rates the movie a very high 89%, with an audience score of 87%. A couple example reviews:
                        Critic: “Audiences won’t remember the picture for its elaborate settings or spectacular scenes, but it would be difficult for them to forget the human qualities of its historical characters, who are made to practically live and breathe.” –Judy Todd, Salt Lake Tribune
                        Audience: Impeccable casting, provocative story line, great direction and editing, mesmerizing photography, gorgeous costumes all make for a perfect film. Have seen every 10 years since released and always find something new to appreciate and remember. Scofield and Shaw well-deserved their Oscars as does the Film.”

A Deeper Dive:
            Caution: spoilers ahead.
There are . . . a TON of great stories that underlie the awesomeness of this movie, but let’s start with the obvious one: Robert Shaw as Henry VIII.
            King Henry VIII of England is well recorded as having certain personality traits. Most especially, historians note the mid 1520s as when Henry suddenly began a transformation from a reasonable, pleasant and conservative man, to one who was intolerant, irritable, and tyrannical. This movie takes place during the later stages of this transformation, and Shaw’s portrayal of such a domineering personality is absolutely captivating.
            For example, we’re introduced to Henry as he arrives by boat at More’s house. The king’s barge lands at a muddy beach, and with no alternative, the king leads the way and simply jumps out into the muck. He cruelly turns and stares at his courtiers, still in the boats. The royal entourage looks at him in apprehension, with absolutely silence. Satisfied that they won’t dare interpret the scene      without him, the king finally decides to make it into a joke, bursting into laughter. Naturally, the entourage follows suit, with a similar, forced laughter. In only 15 seconds, without telling us about the king or even speaking words, Shaw and Fred Zinnemann (the director) have shown us what type of man Henry of the VIII is: a bombastic, insecure, wild-eyed tyrant, not above ruling through fear.
            I won’t give away more than that, but consider this: Shaw filmed all of his scenes for the movie in a single day, appears in the movie for less than 4 minutes of screen time . . . and received an Oscar nomination for the performance.

            Moving on, I was surprised when I re-watched this move to have two other excellent actors appear, almost first thing: Leo McKern, and Orson Wells.

            Wells portrays Cardinal Wolsey, responsible for getting king Henry what he wants, and  like Shaw, he barely appears in this movie. However, also like Shaw, his role is memorable, and important- here we have a guy dominant in power and appearance, appealing to another influential man, Sir Thomas More, to assist in the efforts to accommodate the king. More says no, and ultimately Wolsey fails, dying in ignominy, but not before giving More a final twist of the tail, naming him the new chancellor, responsible for assisting the king. Again, Zinnemann shows the story: a powerful man’s failure has led to his ruin . . . what will More’s fate be?
           

            Next, Leo McKern as Thomas Cromwell is easy to miss, but absolutely fantastic.

            I first started to recognize McKern’s genius a few weeks ago, when I began watching an old TV show about a British criminal defense lawyer: “Rumpole of the Bailey.” His deep voice, and ability to quickly shift from jocular to vicious is truly superb. He comes across as both cunning and determined . . . a man given more power and influence than he deserves, but don’t ever say that to his face.

            What the director (Zinnemann) has effectively done is to load up an entire cast with dominant personalities . . . heavyweights accustomed to drawing all of the attention on the screen and imposing their will upon others. All that, for the purpose of contrasting them against the movie’s true star:

The Protagonist: Sir Thomas More, portrayed by Paul Schofield

            Great story here: Schofield began his portrayal of More on stage, and despite his best efforts, received harsh criticism. Scofield later referred to the part as the only time “my intuition for the part has failed me,” forcing him to “start from scratch and just work on facts, making myself totally faithful to what was on the page”. After realizing “I had to find the way the man would feel; then I was able to find the way he should sound”, and the vital importance of conveying complete sincerity and humility when “playing a man of spiritual depth.”¹

            Schofield’s re-imagined portrayal of More transformed the play into a powerful emotional experience, one which Fred Zinnemann himself experienced. As a result, the on-screen interpretation of the play allows Schofield’s performance to be contrasted by the domineering, star power performances of McKern, Wells, and Shaw. Zinnemann, the same director as “High Noon” and “From Here to Eternity,” knew exactly what he was doing: Schofield’s More is quiet, humble, reasonable, and deeply spiritual. These qualities become so much more compelling when alongside characters of volume, bombast and disgrace.

            It’s difficult to explain how inspiring and compelling this character truly is, and how it’s presented. As an example, the movie “Lincoln” (2012) has a scene where, at the height of the crisis, President Lincoln is asked an important, divisive question, where his answer, one way or another, could defeat his integrity and/or his goals. Shrewdly, he gives a reply with information but no answer, to which a political opponent exclaims: “It’s a lawyer’s dodge!” Even so, Lincoln succeeds. I love that moment because it shows that words matter: the careful, calculated assembly of concepts and ideas can find a route between two failures. When presented with an awful this or that decision, our protagonist instead creates a clever, third option. This is More’s specialty.
            On the one hand More could support the king, and lose his soul, acting against his conscience. And on the other hand, More could oppose the king, and lose his life.  Despite intense, unrelenting, increasing pressure, More repeatedly, almost unbelievably finds a way through it all. He is like a swordsman, forced into a duel unwillingly . . . he refuses to attack his opponent, but simultaneously (and expertly) parries every cut and thrust aimed at him.

            This is the ultimate man of principle. We’re introduced to him as acceding to an onerous duty, being summoned to the cardinal’s residence late at night. He refuses to complain about it, but leads his family in prayer before he leaves . . . even insisting that they pray for the obnoxious king himself. In this, he is also a terrific father: he shares deep emotional and intellectual affection with his daughter, and he works hard to keep peace and happiness in the household.
            And as for his career, if a man of principle, he is the perfect choice to be a judge in a legal court. Morals should hopefully never pose a contradiction with the law, but More expertly explains why, no matter what the temptation, the rule of law must be respected: you must grant to others the same safety you wish for yourself:

            The culmination of the movie is More’s trial and execution, and it’s fitting that this man of law and principles was only harmed by the king when his forces themselves broke the law in order to get at More. Sir Thomas More was a martyr for this faith and principles, but more than that, he was, both in the movie and in life, a man of incredible character and integrity. Henry the VIII even said, after More’s execution: “The honestest man in my kingdom is dead.”
            If my sons grow up to be like Thomas More, I’m OK with that.

————————————————

“The Emperor’s New Groove (2000)
            Features David Spade, John Goodman, Eartha Kitt, and Patrick Warburton

Snapshot:      
            An outstanding and hilarious story about integrity and character growth.
 

Plot:               
            A completely original re-imagining of the Hans Christian Anderson’s folktale, “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” In this story, a jealous usurper tries to kill the proud, selfish emperor, but by mistake, turns him into a llama. Assisted by a humble, selfless peasant, the emperor seeks to return to the palace and be restored to human form.

Content:
            It’s very difficult to find anything unclean in this movie. There are fleeting jokes about clothing/appearance, no foul language, and some mild, cartoony violence.

Quality of Entertainment:
            Even pre-articulate audiences (4+)  might find this movie engaging.
            Tomatoes rates the movie 86%, and audiences rate it 84% A couple example reviews:
                        Critic: “It’s one of those near-flawless masterpieces that makes you wonder why every troubled production doesn’t result in a sensational finished product.” –Zita Short, InSession Film
                        Audience: “I LOVE THIS MOVIE! This movie is my go-to for anything: a road trip, a bad mood, or anytime I need a laugh. Simple graphics, great voice acting, and east to spot jokes for anyone. I saw very few (if any) continuity errors. Additionally, if parents or teachers want to teach about character devolopment, this is a great example. A great movie 11/10 in my book, watch it and I am sure you’ll love it.” –Kennedy K

A Deeper Dive:
            Caution: spoilers ahead.

            If anyone ever doubted the value of talented actors/actresses to voice animated characters, you would first point to Robin Williams’ work as the Genie in “Aladdin” (1992). But for me, a close second place is “The Emperor’s New Groove,” where four talented actors all voice integral roles in the film, and their appearances, personalities and senses of humor are all brilliantly employed. First, there’s Eartha Kitt as Yzma, the usurper and antagonist.

            Now, as the “bad guy,” Yzma isn’t supposed to be admirable at all. But she does give us some quality material. Specifically, it’s easy to relate to her frustration of working hard for little or no reward. Also, the incompetence of her helper, Kronk, frequently drives her to high annoyance. Now, ending everything there, Yzma’s purpose in this movie is two-fold: 1) to serve as the antagonist, the obstacle to resolution. 2) another foil for the movie’s never-ending stream of hilarious one-liners. Because it’s so obviously that she’s cunning, it’s so funny that her sidekick, Kronk, is laughably NOT cunning.

            Warburton, Kronk’s voice actor, even described the character: “He’s about as sharp as a marble.” It makes for some outrageously funny exchanges between him and Yzma, where it’s like he’s always playing the stupid game . . . except he’s really just that ignorant. Kronk’s character would be sad, pitiable, and even a cruel joke by the writers except that he’s portrayed as being an accidental villain. In other words, he helps Yzma because she’s told him that’s his job, but left to his own devices, he would be happy to help someone else. There’s even a scene where a restaurant chef quits his job right in front of Kronk, and without missing a beat, Kronk begins filling orders, even using kitchen jargon! But if Kronk and even Yzma invite (some of) our sympathies, Kuzco does not.

He’s a spoiled brat in nearly every sense of the word. I don’t think we’re meant to hate him, but the first 30-40 minutes of this movie absolutely lead us to understand that, even though he suffers, being turned into a llama, he is not the good guy. It reminds me of something a professor once told me: “Not everything tragic is a tragedy.” In other words, Kuzco’s punishment strikes us as remarkably appropriate, especially since his selfish attitude endure long into the movie. Still, we like Kuzco, because he entertains us. His snappy, snarky comments keep the movie energized, and there’s even a great scene where the movie is “paused” so that he can step in and remind us that the film is really about “him.” Of course, that actually works as an counter-flag, underlining the real star of the show.

The Protagonist: Pacha, voiced by John Goodman

            Pacha is introduced to us pretty early in the movie, so there’s not much of which he isn’t a part. And yet, it’s not like he went seeking glory, fame, or anything. Simply, a summons by the emperor brought him to the palace, where he learned that the emperor would destroy his home. Arriving back home, he discovers, through a weird trick of fate, that the emperor has been transformed into a llama, and placed at his mercy. Now, nobody can criticize Pacha for insisting that, before he promises to help the emperor, that Kuzco himself promise to not destroy his home. However, it’s what happens after this exchange, and how Pacha reacts to it that really makes him inspirational: Kuzco goes back on his promise, and yet Pacha still helps him.
            Now, it would be easy to dismiss Pacha as a sucker, or maybe just ignorant for his blithe insistence on keeping his promise, but here’s the thing: for a selfish man like Kuzco, the only way to learn selflessness is by example . . . and in this case, Pacha has chosen to be that example.
            We learned earlier in the movie, too, why Pacha may be willing to make this self-sacrifice. That is, he is a father, a family man, dedicated to his wife and children. Nobody in that same situation can doubt that a good father must self-sacrifice, and set a good example if he hopes for his children to improve their behavior. It’s obvious from his interactions with his family that they admire and love him. It’s a rare instance, maybe the only time where a Disney movie shows an intact nuclear family with healthy relationships all around:

            My one, slightly less complimentary note on Pacha as that we don’t see, or even know what he does for work. I mean, I think we’re meant to assume that he’s a llama farmer, but it’s pretty unclear. We’re led to believe that he’s not afraid of working, but we never actually see him at his work. That’s frustrating, because for all the good he does in this movie, he’s not actually teaching his audience about fulfilling his vocation insofar as what he must do to support his family. I mean, it’s great that he can leave his work and his family in order to help the Emperor get back home, but most family men don’t have that luxury . .  . not even close.
            Still, the lessons that Pacha gives us are pretty much as 100% wholesome. I mean, I’m sure there’s a dictionary out there where, if you flip to the word “wholesome,” item number one reads “Pacha.” Sure he gets frustrated when the emperor treats him like dirt, but he’s pretty much the epitome of fatherly and friendly awesomeness, with a mountain of integrity to boot.
            If my kids grow up to be like Pacha, I’m OK with that.

Honorable Mention: First Knight (1995)

            Features Richard Gere, and Sean Connery.

            This movie CANNOT make this list. The violence, and the inappropriate relationships (even if only insinuated) make this movie for 16+ at least.
            Caution: spoilers ahead.
            Also, the goodness of it comes in a can of corn, where the most admirable character (King Arthur, portrayed by Sean Connery) is framed as a great leader, but too boring to be truly inspirational. We’re instead supposed to like Sir Lancelot, portrayed by Richard Gere . . . who has no moral quibbles with pursuing a relationship with Queen Guinevere. Ick.

            Still, there are vanishingly few movies with good medieval action scenes, and this one shows some dynamite swordplay well worth watching. Tomatoes rates the movie 43%, but 70% of the audience likes it.

            Also, there is nothing wrong with Connery’s King Arthur. There is even a scene where, when faced with a choice between death, and the good of his people, he chooses a noble, selfless death. When my sons are old enough to identify Lancelot’s flaws without being scandalized by the content of the movie, yes, I think I’m OK if my sons grow up to be like King Arthur.

Music I’m listening to: “The Mountain House,” by Jay Ungar and Molly Mason
            Again- maybe you like it, maybe you don’t. Sometimes I just feel like sharing music, and this one is a particularly beautiful example of Appalachian style folk music. If you liked “Ashokan Farewell,” the song made famous by Ken Burns’ Civil War, I think you’ll like this one as well.

THANKS FOR READING!

Be kind: like and share please. 🙂

1. (Edited by Tony Cole and Helen Krich Chinoy (1970), Actors on Acting: The Theories, Techniques, and Practices of the World’s Great Actors Told in Their Own Words, Crown Publisher’s, Inc. Pages 421-422.) ↩︎

MOVIES FOR MY SONS: CRITERIA, AND FIRST PICKS

• 

As the father of three boys, I often find myself  searching for ways to inspire them to proper, virtuous behavior. Like most of society, my family members watch movies. It’s a part of our repertoire for entertainment. For better or for worse, we human beings get some of our ideas of archetypal behavior from watching movies, so, naturally, I began asking myself: what are some movies that illustrate proper, manly behavior? As my boys grow up, it will be useful to have a list to which I can introduce and reintroduce them. Hence, the genesis of this project.

Such a list requires a criteria:

–Admirable male protagonist. With apologies to the ladies, I want to locate movies where it’s specifically a dude who shows good virtuous behavior. Specifically: characters where I can point to them and say, “Son, if you grow up to be like that, I’m OK with it.”

–Quality entertainment. There are a TON of B and C grade movies out there which tell a terrific story of virtue . . . but sorely lack in production and/or entertainment value. In other words, you would only sit through them because you believe in the message of the movie. So, to make this list, the movie needs to be entertaining on its own merits, without qualifications.

–Clean. I have strong feelings regarding a movie’s inclusion of violence, profanity, and  sexual content.
            -The portrayal of violence has to be 1) age appropriate to the audience (my sons), and 2) tasteful and proportionate to the story being told. Yes, some movies are OK for my older sons, but not my younger.
            -Similarly with profanity: it has to be age appropriate, and contextually appropriate. Mostly, it’s OK for a character in the heat of battle to curse his misfortune, but it’s NOT OK to glorify the use of foul language.
            -Basically, no sexual content is OK.  I understand that some movie directors feel like it’s a part of showing two characters in love, but I absolutely disagree with the morality and necessity of that decision. My children know very well that my wife and I love each other, and they have learned that without being in the bedroom.

–I recently watched it. Yep. How many times have we ever gone to watch a memorable movie for the first time in awhile, and all of a sudden . .  “Whoops! I don’t remember THAT as part of the movie.” So yea, for a movie to be on this list, I have to have seen it recently.

That’s the criteria. Now, here are the first few additions.

——————————-

High Noon (1952)
            Features Gary Cooper, and Grace Kelly

• 

Snapshot:      
            “High Noon” is, in some ways, the very best in the genre of Western films.

Plot:               
            On his wedding day, the town marshal turns in his badge and is just about ready to leave town, when he gets word that a criminal with a personal grudge will be arriving on the noon train. He can leave town, as planned, or do something else. He does something else.

Content:
            It’s about as squeaky clean as a Western gets. Nothing sexual. No foul or strong language. Some people smoke. The last 15 minutes of the movie features a gunfight with puffs of smoke and loud bangs.

Quality of Entertainment:
            Mature audiences (14+)  should find the movie very dramatic and engaging. It’s a linear, mostly un-condensed countdown until high noon, when the train arrives, and all the while, the Marshal tries, sometimes desperately, to prepare for the inevitable confrontation . The audience needs to pay attention to the dialogue, but the pacing is good,  the tension steadily rises all the way up to the finale, and some terrific actors accent the story with some dynamite performances.
            Tomatoes rates the movie a whopping 94%, with an 89% audience score. A couple example reviews:
                        Critic: “High Noon achieves a shattering tension. It is a remorselessly deliberate pace at which Zinnemann (the director) follows his story’s hero along the desperately lonely trail of courage against ever-mounting odds.” –Jay Carmody, Washington Star
                        Audience: “Great movie to watch again periodically. Proof that a movie can be engaging without the colorful language and special effects appearing on many screens today. Without snappy comebacks to every remark….as though some actual thought was considered before you heard an answer to some remark. Nicely paced. Touched upon a variety of feelings which might have existed in those times. I realize life was far more challenging then. Gullible I suppose, I do think that a situation similar to this might have occurred in those more rugged times. The entire movie is a pleasure to settle back and enjoy on a rainy night. More than once.” –John H

The Protagonist:
            Caution: spoilers ahead.

• 

            The Marshal, portrayed by Cooper, is forced, right from the beginning of the movie, to choose between safeguarding others, or doing what is easy. Wanting to do the right thing, he struggles, for much of the rest of the movie, to find assistance and support. Repeatedly frustrated, he is reminded, over and again, the he can simply leave town. Ultimately,  the marshal faces the bad guys alone. In the end,  with the town safe again, the marshal tears off his badge in disgust, and leaves town with his new bride.
            As an ideal for young men, Cooper’s portrayal of the Marshall is outstanding. He is a steadfast man of integrity, even in the face of disappointment, frustration, and impending doom. The Marshall refuses to compromise on his sense of duty. Even the ultimate act of the movie (disgustedly taking off his badge) has admirable merit to it: he quit, because although he has safeguarded the town, the town showed itself unworthy of his self-sacrifice. I can think of no better example of Matthew 7:6- “Do not put pearls before swine.”
            If my sons grow up to be like the Marshal in “High Noon,” I’m OK with that.       

—————————-

Second Hand Lions (2003)
            Features Robert Duvall and Michael Caine

Snapshot:      
            A young man learns about manhood from two retired, adventurous uncles.  

Plot:               
            Walter’s mom is quickly revealed as irresponsible, and she drops him off in the care of Uncles Hub and Garth. Though initially scared of each other, they develop a remarkable relationship: the Uncles sharing what they have learned about life (with all of its adventures, joys, and disappointments), and Walter eagerly soaking up every ounce of their wisdom.  

Content:
            Ages 10+. There are several scenes of pseudo-violence, such as when Uncle Hub disarms a teenager wielding a knife. There is no sexual content. Uncle Hub is a little crass, using the H word, the D word, and sometimes making crude references.          

Quality of Entertainment:
            I personally wouldn’t rate this movie “A” in quality, but it’s at least a B+, and I know many people who recommend the film as one of their favorites. The problem is that the film comes across, sometimes, as contrived. That is, sometimes, it’s a little painful how hard and artificially the movie is trying push its message of admirable manhood. The saving grace for the movie, of course, is the actors who portray the uncles: Caine and Duvall are absurdly talented in their own rite, each capable of carrying an entire movie single-handedly . . . and yet in this movie, we get BOTH. It’s very good.
            Tomatoes rates the movie 60%, with an 84% audience score.  One from each:
                        Critic: “[Most family films] aim too low, so perhaps there should be hearty applause for one that tries to do too much good in its small space of time.” –Jeffrey Overstreet, Looking Closer
                        Audience: “One of the best movies ever made. Robert Duval and Michael Cain do a fantastic job playing opposites yet equals as the yin/yang brothers of adventure and Haley Joel Osment(Walter)  does a wonderful job acting as awkward as ever. The story is simple but imaginative and is enjoyable for the entire family. A true gem to keep and watch every year. I hope I can be like the brothers McCann when I am old.” –Joe E

The Protagonist:
            Caution: spoilers ahead.

            It’s difficult to pin down exactly what sort of man this movie is trying to idealize. On the one hand, there’s Uncle Hub, the brash, adventurous, courageous doer who fears nothing and acts with decisiveness and confidence. On the other hand, there Uncle Garth, who isn’t NOT those things, but definitely places greater emphasis on tact, sensitivity, and being reasonable.
            There’s a series of scenes where Garth tells Walter the stories of their (the Uncle’s) lives, and it builds to a moment when Garth reveals that Hub has a special speech that he gives to younger people about what it means to be a man. This not only helps us to build respect for Hub, and makes us anxious for his speech, but it also, subliminally, gives us a greater appreciation for Garth: that he can be so calm, reasonable, and content to be in second place behind Hub. It’s not hard to see how each uncle would easily (and justifiably) earn a permanent place in Walter’s heart.  The son of an irresponsible mother, and an absent father, Walter has every reason to be a hateful, violent person, angry at the world and even with himself. Instead, this unlikely family shares a strange sort of mutually beneficial selflessness.
            Naturally, we identify mostly with Walter, so it’s a tense scene near the end when his mother and boyfriend suddenly swoop in to pressure Walter into betraying the Uncles’ fortune. This is where all of those Uncle Hub stories first come in handy: as the angry boyfriend threatens violence on Walter, he repeats a line from a young Uncle Hub: “Prepare to defend yourself.” He earns himself a brief escape before the boyfriend again catches him . . . but this time, it’s a lion that saves Walter, a lion that he had befriended, and a lion which, after saving Walter, itself dies of exhaustion.
            For me, there are a LOT of lessons going on there. First, you need the courage of Uncle Hub. Second, you need the wisdom and kindness of Uncle Garth to befriend the lion in the first place. Third, that just as the lion saved Walter before dying, so too will the Uncles, already elderly, die after saving Walter.
            If my sons grow up to be some kind Uncle Garth or Uncle Hub, I’m OK with that.


————————————–

Honorable Mention: Memphis Belle (1990)
            Features Matthew Modine, John Lithgow, and a very young Sean Astin.

            This movie cannot make the list. It has a sex scene (nothing is shown, but strongly implied).  It has some strong instances of violence (e.g., “Someone’s guts are all over the window!”). And it’s hard to idealize the best character, Captain Dearborn, because for most of the movie, his face is behind an oxygen mask, and he’s not even a lead so much as a co-star.

            For all that, this is a tremendously entertaining movie, especially for those fathers and sons who crave some WWII action in the sky. They used actual B17s to film the movie, and the depictions of the allied and enemy fighter planes are similarly spot on. Captain Dearborn is sometimes dismissed by others as being too prudish, and too much of a boy scout, but by the end of the movie, it’s clear that his dedication to his men was essential to their safety and survival. If my sons are old enough (16+) to handle some of the on-screen content, then yes, I’m OK if they grow up to be like Captain Dearborn.

————————-

Music I’m listening to: “Impalas,” by Parra for Cuva
            Sometimes, I just wanna share my music with others. Maybe you like it, maybe you don’t. This is my current favorite for tuning out the world as I grade student papers or compose lecture notes. Be sure to wear headphones! Failing this, you’ll miss out on a lot of the beautiful subtleties.

THANKS FOR READING!
Be kind: like and share please. :)

Can a donkey dance a minuet? The bloody summer of 1916- Pt. 4.

This is the final part of a four part series on the summer of 1916:

BACKGROUND

VERDUN

THE SOMME

This part examines some of the remaining events to unfold in 1916, as well as the long-term consequences of the Battles of Verdun and the Somme.

To begin, 1916 saw the Battle of the Verdun take a turn, and conclude. The French were desperate to restore the front lines to a location which made Verdun more secure, and launched major attacks throughout October. When the French moved new, massive artillery pieces into position, they began to knock Forts Douaumont and Vaux apart, leading the Germans to abandoning them without a fight, opting for more defensible positions further East. The French celebrated as if they had won the Western front, but they would continue their ill-advised attacks up through December. By the time both French and German commanders were ready to close the book on Verdun, casualties had reached nearly 500,000 on each side, with both Germans and French listing approximately 150,000 killed. By the time the battle ended, both sides were so exhausted that it was easy to mistake the living for the dead.

French troops at Verdun loiter in the trenches, awaiting their next orders.

Meanwhile, on the Eastern Front, events proved equally violent. The French had begged the Russians to do something to ease the pressure at Verdun, and the result was the Russian offensive at Lake Naroch: a disaster. The Russians lost between 110,000 and 76,000 troops (12,000 of which perished from hypothermia), while the Germans counted only 20-40,000 in casualties. Later in the year, Russian general Aleksei Brusilov was given the authority to organize a broad offensive in which he pioneered new tactics: many localized, probing attacks designed to achieve one or two breakthroughs before the masses of troops were ordered forward to the weak points. The result was the greatest Russian success of the war: Brusilov’s army advanced approximately 50 miles, and successfully diverted huge numbers of German troops towards the Eastern Front. Even so, Brusilov’s army was but one of several involved in the attack, and the failure of another Russian army (led by Alexei Evert), combined with supply problems, spelled the end of the offensive, and also resulted in massive loss of life. The Russians counted over 500,000 casualties (440,000 dead or wounded), the Germans 350,000, and the Austro-Hungarians a staggering 975,000.

Left: plan of the Brusilov Offensive. Right: frontlines after the offensive.

Back on the Somme: The British reasoned that such events proved that the Germans couldn’t possibly have pressed more troops into the area, and renewed their attacks up through November, even employing tanks for the very first time, albeit in rudimentary form.

Nevertheless, the Germans successfully defended the region, though at great cost to both sides. By the time the British finally gave up on attacks at the Somme in November, it had become a slaughterhouse to rival that of Verdun: combined French and British casualties numbered nearly 800,000, and the Germans counted about 540,000

Captured German trenches at The Somme.

In other news, Rumania signed a secret pact with the Allies in August, agreeing to enter the war on their side in exchange for Transylvania. It was perhaps the biggest miscalculation of the entire war: Rumania quickly invaded Transylvania, inviting a massive German counterattack which smashed the entirety of the Rumanian army. Rumanian retreats and surrenders would continue up through 1917, when a formal armistice was signed in December. Though the Rumanians had at times fought well (and had successfully diverted over 1,000,000 troops from the Central Powers), the end result was a little over 200,000 Central Power casualties, measured against over 550,000 Rumanian casualties, most of them prisoners. There are even reports of Rumanian troops being so shocked by battle with the Germans that they even tried to surrender to approaching Russian troops, their Allies. Supremely un-amused, the Russian commander in the Rumanian front found himself ordered to coordinate a join defense with the Rumanians. He replied that “trying to turn the Rumanians into a disciplined force” was like “trying to get a donkey to dance a minuet.”

While the inconclusive Battle of Jutland maintained British control of the sea, the real changes of 1916 were in political and military leadership:

Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph died in November, his Grandnephew Charles becoming the new emperor, and he wanted Austria-Hungary out of the war.

In August, Kaiser Wilhelm was convinced that Erich von Falkenhayn would never deliver Germany to victory, and elevated Paul von Hindenburg to the German chief of staff, effectively handing over all military decisions to Hindenburg’s chief strategist, Erich Ludendorff.

Joseph Joffre was replaced as commander of the French forces by Robert Nivelle the “hero” who had planned the assaults on the abandoned forts of Douaumont and Vaux.

Though Douglas Haig retained command of the British Expeditionary Force until the end of the war, Prime Minister H.H. Asquith was blamed for many of the disastrous strategic decisions, and was replaced by David Lloyd George in December.

Finally, apart from the Brusilov Offensive (which itself was also costly), the Russian experience in the war had been a series of defeats and disasters. 1916 represented proof that the Tzar’s regime would both continue in an ill-executed war, and do so against the will of the people. A revolution in early 1917 would dismantle his imperial government, and another in late 1917 would place the Bolsheviks in power.

We would do well to remember that wars are fought by men, but caused and prolonged by leaders. Though death from old-age, being deposed by revolution, and military replacement are regrettable fates, the real price for the war was paid by the men on the ground. In 1916 alone, the number of casualties would reach unbelievable numbers:

Britain- over 620,000

France- over 870,000

Russia- over 1,000,000

Germany- over 1,300,000

 

At night on the Somme, near Beaumont-Hamel, when the guns and rifles fell silent, the Germans would leave their trenches and wordlessly help the British sort through the piles of dead in order to find the few men who were still alive.

 

 

 

 

The Somme: The bloody Summer of 1916, Pt 3

(For preceding posts on the summer of 1916, click here for the background, and here for Verdun)

“When we started to fire, we just had to load and reload. They went down in their hundreds. We didn’t have to aim, we just fired into them.”

~German Machine-Gunner

“If it had been possible to win the war in the west by sheer force, by overpowering the enemy with manpower and firepower, the Battle of the Somme would have done the job. The British and French attacked a German army that they outnumbered by an enormous margin. They had an equal advantage in artillery and total control of the air. They were backed by all the resources that modern industrial economies could put at the disposal of their soldiers.”

~G.J. Meyer, A World Undone: The Story of the Great War, 1914 to 1918 (New York: Bantam Dell, 2007), 435.

Like Falkenhayn, their German counterpart, the Allied military planners had used the winter of 1915-1916 to strategize the best way to attack their enemy. The solution seemed easy enough: to apply simultaneous pressure on the Germans and Austro-Hungarian armies on the Eastern, Western, and Russian fronts. Even if none of these attacks proved successful, they could at least ensure that each attack would keep German resources from being funneled to the other attacks, and thereby create a predictable enemy. These plans were upset, however, when the Germans launched a major offensive at Verdun in early 1916.

The supreme French commander, Joseph Joffre, had no idea whether the Germans could maintain the strength of their offensive against Verdun. What was important, instead, was to insure that the Germans did NOT capture Verdun, and he thus demanded that the British launch an offensive somewhere else in an attempt to draw German strength away from the vicinity of Verdun.

Joseph Joffre

As with Falkenhayn’s decision to attack the well-fortified region of Verdun, we may certainly critique Joffre’s selection of the Somme for the offensive. The Germans had not been attacked in that region for nearly two years, and had worked feverishly to build up their defenses in that region. Even so, these defenses did have one weakness: The Germans were so confident in the strength of their defensive works in the Somme that their lines there were proportionately less populated than in other areas.

With Joffre’s French armies preoccupied at Verdun, the Somme offensive became the responsibility of the supreme British commander, Douglas Haig, and he could scarcely be accused of failing to plan the offensive. He moved over a 500,000 men to the Somme front, alternating them in turns to the rear, where they trained in mock assaults. Combined with the French pieces, over 1,600 units of field artillery, 1,000 medium and over 400 pieces of heavy artillery were moved to the area, creating a saturation of artillery that amounted to about 1 piece of artillery for every 8 yards of battlefront. To protect against being cut by German artillery, 7 miles of telephone wire were buried. 120 miles of pipe were laid in order to maintain a supply of fresh water to the troops. 10 squadrons (185 planes) were moved to the area to suddenly dominate the air war in the area, allowing for un-hampered artillery spotting. Preparation and planning for the attack on the Somme was very thorough, and Haig was responsible for every bit of it.

Douglas Haig

The rub, however, was in the tactical preparation within the high-command system: there was none. Haig had come through the military as a cavalryman, and therefore intended to smash the German lines, achieving a breakthrough to be exploited by tens of thousands of cavalry waiting in reserve. However, Haig’s primary infantry commander, Sir Henry Rawlinson, was a career infantryman, and had drawn the lesson from the first two years of war that breakthrough was impossible. Instead, he favored attacks with more localized objectives: to seize just enough ground as to lure the enemy into a counterattack, during which both infantry and artillery could obliterate them. Thus, Haig sought a quick victory, destroying an entire German army and collapsing their defenses in the region, whereas Rawlinson sought a long victory of attrition, where success would be measured by the number of enemy soldiers killed. The Battle of the Somme opened with the two major British commanders having different tactical strategies and expectations, and neither attempted to discuss them with the other.

Henry Rawlinson

Even so, the Allies’s advantage in numbers were almost laughable: combined with the French troops, they would send over 750,000 men into battle. The Germans would oppose them (initially) with barely half that number. Given the number of artillery pieces involved, Haig was confident than the artillery barrage alone would blow the Germans apart, as over 1.5 million shells fell on the German lines over the course of a 5 day bombardment. On the evening of June 30, Germans on high observation points noted the numbers of troops and cavalry being marched up to the front lines. Clearly, the day of attack was at hand.

Allied artillery bombardment began at 6:25am on July 1, the same as the 5 days preceding it. At 7:20am, they detonated a mine underneath the German lines at Hawthorne ridge. Yet for the limited destruction which this explosion rendered upon German defenses, it seemed the trigger for German artillery, which suddenly opened up, falling with stunning accuracy upon the Allied lines. Ten other British mines were detonated at 7:28 am, and at 7:30, whistles blew, and the attack began.

Empty shells casings from artillery fired on the first day of The Somme, July 1, 1916.

The explosion at Hawthorne Ridge, the planned detonation of a mine beneath German lines.

The men who went forward quickly learned two stunning truths: First, almost a full third of the Allied artillery shells had failed to explode (due to a collapse of quality control as British factories rushed to manufacture as many shells as possible), leaving German dugouts and barbed wire intact, and forcing the troops into deadly funnels of kill-zones in front of German machine guns. Second, the Germans had not been obliterated by the artillery barrage. Assuming that the barrage would indeed wipe out the Germans and their defenses, Rawlinson had ordered his troops to advance slowly, shoulder to shoulder, to give the inexperienced men courage. Instead, they made astoundingly easy targets for the German gunners. Of the 66,000 men of the first British wave, fully half of them became casualties. The Germans became so repulsed by the carnage that they became unwilling to continue firing when they saw the British falling back. By the end of the day, over 60,000 British troops had become casualties. The bloodiest day in the history of British warfare.

On the Northern and Southern ends of the line, however, the French had been surprisingly successful. To the South, the Germans were surprised by the attack, having seen no preparatory buildup of troops. To the North, an effective creeping barrage paved the way for the French to advance easily past their first day’s objective. As opposed to the British, forced to march with over 70 pounds of equipment, shoulder to shoulder,  French troops were told to leave behind everything unnecessary for the day’s fight, and encouraged to run, duck, and doge their war forward. In the South, however, the swampy marshlands of the Somme river blocked further advance, and in the North, Rawlinson had given orders to advance only as far as the day’s limited objectives allowed, and he thus sent no troops to exploit the breakthrough achieved there. By the end of July 1, 1916, the Battle of the Somme was already deadlocked, though the slaughter would continue for almost another 5 months, with very limited gains.

The allies made a slow, painful advance over the course of the Battle of the Somme.

As the losses from the Somme continued to pile up, Englishmen became more and more horrified, looking to the 23 men on the British war-cabinet for an explanation. Placards, printed by an English newspaper, began to appear on the streets bearing bold, black print:

WANTED: 23 ROPES

(A summary and conclusion of the events of the summer of 1916 will be forthcoming in my 4th and final post of this series.)

Verdun: “They Shall not Pass!” (The bloody Summer of 1916- Pt 2)

(For the background to this post, see Pt 1, FOUND HERE)

The supreme German military commander, Erich von Falkenhayn, had chosen to attack Verdun for a number of reasons. Secondarily, the city and its surrounding fortifications, once in German hands, would be an easily defensible position. Primarily, however, he wanted to lure the French into launching desperate attacks to recapture a region, and there were few cities or areas which the French placed more value upon than Verdun.

A historic depiction of Verdun, the jewel of Northeastern France, c. 17th century.

Its position dominated a bend in the Meuse river, thus ensuring its importance as early as the 5th century, when the city had successfully resisted an attempt at capture by Attila the Hun. When the Peace of Westphalia divided up the old Holy Roman Empire in 1648, Verdun became a part of France, and the French quickly transformed the city into the heart of their Eastern defenses. A citadel in the center of the city was erected in the 17th century, with a double ring of forts surrounding the city as well. Several modernization programs kept the defenses up to date, spurred on by French defeat by the Germans in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870. By 1914, Verdun had become a symbol of French resistance: It’s concrete reinforced forts and other defenses were linked by telephone and underground narrow-gauge railways.

An example of what some of the defenses of Verdun’s forts looked like.

While we in modernity can point to Falkenhayn’s folly in attacking such a seriously fortified area, we would also do well to remember what was at stake: if Falkenhayn succeeded in taking Verdun, it would essentially end the war. Defensive tactics were far more successful than offensive tactics in the First World War, and Falkenhayn could have simply spent resources on increasing defenses in the area, confident in the knowledge that the French would repeatedly launch desperate attempts to recapture the city which symbolized their resistance to invading forces.

Attacks began in February, 1916, with a 12-hour long German artillery barrage. Over 100,000 shells fell on French defenses every hour. Over the course of the first month, the Germans managed to push forward only two miles. Even so, the threat to Verdun was very real.

Map of the Verdun battle-region. Notice the ebb and flow of the front lines over the course of 1916, with the Germans first advancing, then eventually falling back.

Mistakes by the French allowed Fort Douaumont to fall to the Germans. Supreme French commander Joseph Joffre quickly dismissed those who suggested a retreat from the area, even though they pointed out, correctly, that holding the rest of the region with that fort in German hands would cost them dearly. Indeed, the Germans soon realized that the French only had three very small supply lines into the region (A railroad, a narrow-gauge railway, and a macam road), and soon began lobbing artillery shells on them, taking a terrible toll both on supplies and reinforcements, as well as those attempting to retreat and recover. To this day, that road is called “The Sacred Way,” and is marked not by mileposts, but by the helmets of French soldiers.

A mile marker on “The Sacred Way”

By the end of March, the offensive had resulted in over 80,000 German casualties, and Falkenhayn was forced to admit that he had failed to seize the strategically important bulk of the Verdun region. The element of surprise was wholly gone now, as the French had heavily reinforced the area, realizing that their best chance to beat the German deathtrap was to prevent it from fully forming, defending Verdun at all costs, their troops shouting all the time: “Ils ne passeront pas!” (“They shall not pass!”). Falkenhayn  now had to make another difficult decision: to abandon the offensive as a failure, and risk the French counter-attacks, or to believe in those few commanders who urged that the attack on Fort Vaux be redoubled. They suggested that the Western edge of the battlefield, in front of the captured Fort Douaumont, had been strengthened, to the weakening of the area of Fort Vaux. If Fort Vaux could be captured, they reasoned, they might yet use these forts to wedge their way through the defenses.

What both sides failed to realize is that the majority of their casualties came not because of attacks, defenses, or the coordination thereof, but rather because of artillery. The longer their forces were concentrated in the area of Verdun, the greater the toll would be, and neither offensive nor defensive actions were likely to produce  strategically important results while the big guns continued their punishing work.

A French 370mm mortar.

The Germans indeed succeeded in capturing Fort Vaux, but only after fighting tooth and nail to remove every Frenchman from the underground tunnels, exacting a heavy toll on both sides. By July, the cost of the battle had risen to c. 185,000 French casualties, while the Germans had lost c. 200,000 troops. Two facts make these numbers even more horrific:

1) Though the German offensives would not continue as they had during the first half of the year, the Battle of Verdun would continue all the way through December 1916.

2) An entirely different battle would be launched in July in order to leech German reinforcements away from Verdun, and this new battle would become a bloodbath in its own rite: The British were attacking along the Somme river.

(I hope to finish the series about the summer of 1916 in two more posts)

 

 

The bloody summer of 1916: Pt 1

With my coursework finished, my qualifying exams done (and passed), and a number of other major tasks and events behind me, I finally find myself with enough time and inclination to add to my blog series on WWI. I have no illusions about making up for lost time or even maintaining a semi-daily schedule in the future. Instead, for now, I merely feel, strongly, that some attention should be drawn to the events of the summer of 1916.

As usual, some background must first be explored before we can properly understand what was going on.

In the winter of 1915-1916, the Supreme German commander, Erich von Falkenhayn, found himself with a decision to make. Perhaps the biggest decision a German commander had to make since deciding selecting where and when to attack the Allies at the start of the war. Falkenhayn had to select the “sweet spot” which would knock one of the Allies out of the war.

Erich von Falkenhayn, supreme German commander, September 1914 – August 1916.

Selecting the enemy proved an easy decision. The Russians had turned out to be a numerous, though weak enemy. The Battles of Tannenberg and Masurian Lakes in late 1914 – early 1915 had each decimated almost entire Russian armies (approximately 100,000 Russian casualties each, many of them captured by the Germans) at little cost to the Germans. 1915 proved even more disastrous for the Russians, as German offensives damaged, punctured, then crumbled the Russian lines. By the end of the year, the Eastern front had developed into a steady series of hasty Russian defenses and crushing defeats. They lost over 2,000,000 troops that year, a full half of them taken prisoner by the Germans. Tzar Nicholas became so desperate to turn the tide that he assumed personal command of the Russian armies, a decision which would only further solidify their doom. By the winter of 1915-16, Falkenhayn had dismissed the Russians as incapable of major offensive operations.

Russian prisoners wait for transportation, following the battle of Masurian Lakes.

Thus, there were only two major threats to German victory: The French and the British.
Interestingly, Falkenhayn did not view the French as the key opponent. France could be bombed, her troops could be killed, the very country itself was playing host to the war, gradually being transformed into a horrible moonscape sculpted by trenches and artillery. No, reasoned Falkenhayn, France stayed in the war because of Britain.
Britain played a much smaller price for her place in the war. Only those troops ready for the fight ever saw the meat of the conflict, as Britain herself was invulnerable to German invasion. As Falkenhayn saw it, the war went on because this invulnerability buffered the illusion that, by aiding, France, Germany could be beaten: “She is staking everything on a war of exhaustion. . . . We have not been able to shatter her belief that it will bring Germany to her knees. What we have to do is dispel that illusion.”
Falkenhayn saw two ways of potentially shattering the British illusion of victory. One was to threaten starvation on the island-nation through intensified submarine warfare. Though the Germans had reeled in their subs significantly after the sinking of Lusitania in early 1915 had threatened to bring a new enemy (America) into the war, Falkenhayn now decided that every tool had to be employed to the detriment of the British. As for potentially angering the Americans, Falkenhayn decided that they “cannot intervene decisively in the war in time.” Thus, German strategy risked much on winning the war in 1916.

The New York times helped spur American outrage at the conduct of the German submarines.

The other method of knocking Britain from the war, reasoned Falkenhayn, was to remove the French from the war. Here, the solution proved more difficult to identify: German armies had been fighting French armies since 1914 without any decisive battles being fought. Clearly, a wholly different strategy would have to be developed in order to manufacture such a victory against the French. Falkenhayn concluded that the static nature of the front lines prevented him from trying anything tactically novel, but instead, he could focus on a strategically significant region: In choosing where to launch his next major offensive, he could select a target region so intensely valued by the French that they would risk anything to protect it. In protecting this region, reasoned Falkenhayn, the French would empty themselves of their strategic reserve of troops, and remove themselves as a significant threat in the war. At that point, the British could either withdraw from the war, or wait until German had begun to crush France before withdrawing. Either way, argued Falkenhayn, the key to victory, Britain’s withdrawal, would be accomplished.
Falkenhayn therefore spent much of the winter of 1915-1916 on carefully selecting an area for his next offensive which would draw the French into a German-deathtrap. He needed a place which would be not only easily defensible from the German side, but also highly valued by the French side.

He selected Verdun.
(More on the events of the summer of 1916 in my next post)

March and April, 1915: War drags on, manifesting competitions for casualties.

March

 

13- Battle of Neuve Chapelle

 

It has often been argued that WWI demonstrated an intense disconnect between the military leaders and the ordinary soldiers. The strongest evidence for this disconnect would probably be the unwavering reliance upon frontal assault even until the later stages of the war despite the huge toll in casualties and the intense lack of gains from such attacks. But another interesting consequence can also be found in the Battle of Neuve Chapelle.

This battle occurred because British and French military leaders were jockeying to have first priority for any reinforcements which became available. The French military commander, Joseph Joffre, hoped to use future reinforcements in a way that allowed his own forces to gain all the glory of the attacks. The commander of the British Expeditionary Force, Sir John French, was determined instead to prove the worthiness of his area of responsibility for these reinforcements, and planned an attack for the express purpose of demonstrating the potential benefits should he be given more reinforcements: French “chose Neuve Chapelle [for the area of his attack] because the Germans, who were thinning out their defenses in order to send troops to the more turbulent east, were known to have made especially severe cuts there.” Finally, an unprecedented amount of artillery was to be dropped on the Germans before this attack, the hope being that they would be broken up and smashed before the attack actually began.

~G.J. Meyer, A World Undone (New York: Delta, 2006), 239.

When the attack began on March 10, following the artillery barrage, the infantry found that most of the enemy positions had been blasted, or even abandoned months ago. They moved forward quickly and accomplished their first day’s objective in less than two hours. When they continued to press forward, they found something utterly remarkable: nothing. This was the first time of only three instances in the entire war that the allies managed to achieve a complete breakthrough. Though about a thousand German troops were close enough to the breech to move towards it, the British, for some hours, found themselves faced with naught but potential, it’s benefits dependant only upon how well they exploited it.

The German military leader Erich Ludendorff once quipped that the British soldiers “fought like lions.” His chief of staff, Max Hoffman, replied that, fortunately for the Germans, they were “led by donkeys.” The Battle of Neueve Chappelle supported this position. First, the area of attack had been too narrow to provide proper mobility for the amount of troops supposed to funnel through the area, and it soon became hopelessly congested. Also, just north of the breakthrough, a series of machine guns continued to fire upon the British because there had been a mix-up in assigning a artillery battalion to barrage the position. Finally, inexplicably poor communication between the attackers and their leaders led to delay after delay in further movements.

In the end, the Germans managed to pull in troops from all directions, bit by bit, and set up new positions, lightly guarded but with machine guns. The British tried again and again to coordinate, but never again managed to overrun the German positions, though major attacks continued through March 13. Losses on both sides were about equal, nearly 10,000 troops each. The Germans gained new confidence in their ability to resist superior attacks with minimal defenders, while the British, tragically, attributed their failure to the brevity of the preceding artillery barrage.

 

 

 

17 First Battle of Champagne

 

At the same time, the First Battle of Champagne had finally been brought to a close. Ever since the Germans had pulled back to more defensible lines following their initial push into France, Supreme French commander Joseph Joffre had felt confident in breaking through in one of the areas where the Germans had pulled back, near Champagne.

Joffre had been perhaps the strongest adherent to the notion of offence a l’outrance (offensive to totality), the idea that both victory and morale relied upon direct, massed attacks with nothing held back. Certainly Joffre’s troops paid the price. The Battle of Champagne (December 19, 1914 — March 17, 1915) was a simple attempt to gain back land from the Germans, and it resulted in over 96,000 allied casualties, and about 46,000 for the Germans.

 

22- The Siege of Przemysl ends

 

Meanwhile, the Austro-Hungarians had been attempting to lift the Russian siege on Przemysl, a fortress town in Galicia. Having initially surrounded the town on September 24, 1914, the besieged Austro-Hungarian forces (approximately 93,000 men) surrendered to a Russian army of nearly 300,000 men.

 

To wrap up a few more things that have happened since the last time I wrote:

April 12- The Russians end their campaign in the Carpathians, the winter forces proving to great a cost for putting the pressure on the Austro Hungarian forces.

 

April 14- The Battle of Shaiba sees the Ottomans attempt to reclaim the city of Basra, in lower Mesopotamia. Their failure to pry the city back from the British would mean that the region’s crucial oil resources would remain in Allied hands.

February 22, 1915: The Second Battle of Masurian Lakes

The German Chief of Staff, Erich von Falkenhayn, remained convinced that if the Central powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary et. al.) were to win the war, they would have to defeat the Entente forces on the Western Front. Nevertheless, Germany also fielded significant armies on the Eastern front in order to combat the Russian forces. The main commander of these German armies, Paul von Hindenburg, pressed Falkenhayn for both permission and the reinforcements to launch another offensive against the Russians. Though he refused for some time, Falkenhayn eventually gave in, reasoning that German aggression on the Eastern front was necessary in order to win over potential allies in the Balkans.

Hindenburg mounted his offensive near the site of the previous year’s victory, near the Masurian Lakes. In essence, he intended to flood the Russian northern flank, and surround and/or roll up as much of the Russian line as he could. The main objective, however, remained the creation of a genuine breakthrough which would allow the German forces as much room as they liked to maneuver through Russia and force their surrender.

Attacks began on February 7 in the midst of a snowstorm. Caught completely by surprise, the Russians quickly fell back up and down the line, desperate to avoid capture. Within a week, elements of the German army had advanced more than 70 miles.

 

The Russians had a huge supply of men from which to draw, however, and the Germans were eventually stopped short of their goal of total victory. Nevertheless, Hindenburg had accomplished a great deal: with an attacking force of around 100,000 men, he had attacked Russian forces totaling over 220,000 and had inflicted more than 200,000 casualties (killed, wounded, and captured). Hindenburg’s losses had been very light (just over 16,000), in comparison.

At this point, the Germans had clearly demonstrated that they were more than a match for the Russians. The Entente could only hope that the Russian armies would at least be able to tie up large numbers of the German troops, for clearly, the Russians had a long way to go before they could hope to launch successful attacks on the Germans.

Febrary 19, 1915- BRITISH AND FRENCH NAVAL ATTACK ON THE DARDANELLES, THE GALLIPOLI CAMPAIGN BEGINS

In France and England, military leaders faced the depressing reality of a fortified battle line running from Nieuport, Belgium (in the coast of the English Channel) all the way down to Switzerland. Over and over again, certain sections of the line had been designated for a breakthrough, with fresh new troops allocated to new attacks in those areas. Little, more than mass slaughter, ever came of these attacks. G.J. Meye, in A World Undone, devotes an entire chapter to “The Search for Elsewhere:” the desperate attempt to find someplace, anyplace, where something new and more promising might be tried.

The result was the Gallipoli Campaign.

After the Germans had persuaded the Ottomans to join the war as allies (or painted them into a corner, depending upon one’s interpretation . . . see also my post of November 1), the Mediterranean route to Russia became effectively closed to the Allies, cutting off an important line of exchange between these allies. In “the search for elsewhere,” the allies found themselves drawn to the idea of re-opening this line.

They settled on a land-sea campaign in which the British navy would sail up the Dardanelles, blasting away all opposition in its path, while at the same time a contingent of troops would land in Galipoli and fight their way to Constantinople (modern day Istanbul). The idea proved attractive enough that the British 29th division, long the subject of intense debate for its future (it had not yet been allocated to any specific campaign or battle-front), found itself sailing for Galipoli.

They would not land until late April, but in the meantime, the navy began their part of the campaign . . . or rather, they pretended to. Again, I defer to the eloquence of Meyer:

“Naval commanders, however, are not easily persuaded to risk ships and their crews. On his first foray, commander [Vice Admiral Sackville] Carden never seriously tested the strength of the defenses. A cautious man with no experience commanding large forces, he made no effort to move his ships into or even near the two-and-a-half-mile-wide entry to the strait [of the Dardanelles]. Instead, he stood off in the distance, shelling the forts from three miles away, and at sunset he brought the attack to an end.”
~G.J. Meyer, A World Undone (New York: Delta, 2006), 268-269.

The campaign was off to an unpromising start.

 

JANUARY 31 AND FEBRUARY 4, 1915, IN REVIEW: THE GERMAN GLOVES COME OFF

On the Eastern front, the Germans found themselves facing masses of hundreds of thousands of enemy troops. True, Field Marshall Hindenburg (with the close assistance of Ludendorf and Hoffmann) had proven that he could defeat the Russians handily, it would take time to bloody the Russians to such a degree as to force their withdrawal from the war.

So the Germans sought out other means of quickly dispensing with the Russians, and on January 31, at the Battle of Bolimov (a part of the Second Battle of the Masurian Lakes), they used poison gas for the first time in First World War.
It was an unconditional failure: the wind switched directions shortly after its release, often blowing the gas right back towards the Germans, and at any rate, the cold temperatures generally prevented the gas from vaporizing.

Poison gas would make a re-entrance later in the year, with more notable results at Ypres.

. . . . .

As another part of the German understanding that they had to win and try to win as quickly as possible, they unleashed their submarines, allowing the boats’ commanders fire, without warning, on any ship flying the flag of one of their enemies.

While we in modernity, who are aware of stealth drones being able to eliminate anyone on earth in the blink of eye, don’t really bat an eye at the idea of “unrestricted submarine warfare,” the idea made many people of 1915 blanch in horror: seamen were supposed to have warning, at least a shot across the bow and an opportunity to surrender their ship.

The world, however, was still adjusting to the emergence of the submarine: a slow and fragile seacraft, submarines of WWI had the advantage of stealth, but little else. In a large sense, submarines faced the choice of a sneak attack, or none at all.

Finally, we may look back at these innovations and curse Germany, but the reality is that the Allies were just as guilty of “dirty” tactics and strategies in war. Indeed, it would not take long before the they themselves began to employ chemical weapons, and one could make an argument that Britain herself had provoked Germany’s policy of unrestricted submarine warfare: by enforcing a blockade of Germany with her surface warships, Britain shifted the emphasis of the war very clearly into a conflict of attrition, rather than as a contest of military forces. Germany had little choice but to retaliate in the only way she could: an attempted blockade of Britian, using the only ships that could evade the British blockade, submarines.