"…the primary object- relief of pressure on Verdun- has to some extent been achieved… Not less than six enemy Divns. … have been withdrawn." Haig’s Diary, 1916
His Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, however, wrote in "War Memoirs of David Lloyd George, 1915-1916" that it had been unnecessary to relieve pressure on Verdun as Germany had already been beginning to falter even before the onset of the offensive.
"It (the Battle of the Somme) was not responsible for the failure of the German effort to capture Verdun. It was only an element in slackening up a German offensive which had already slowed down and was now a practical and almost an acknowledged failure." David Lloyd George
Another aim of the Allies was to relieve pressure on Russia but Russia was already close to complete defeat. Revolution was also staring the Russians in the face and so it was possible that even if the Russian situation had eased and the Germans had retreated there was certainly no guarantee that the Russians would not have turned their backs on the war effort and begun the Revolution anyway. Lloyd George wrote,
"The Somme campaign did not save Russia. That great country was being rapidly driven by the German guns towards the maelstrom of anarchy."
The relieving of pressure on Russia and the attempts to keep Russia in the war was of grave importance as had Russia kept in the war one could argue that the Spring Offensive would not have taken place and the war would have come to an end far sooner than it did. Lloyd George answer to the Russia problem was to avoid the Somme and instead move guns and ammunitions to another river,
"One third of the Somme guns and ammunition transferred in time to the banks of another river, the Dnieper, would have won a great victory for Russia and deferred the revolution until after the war."
Perhaps keeping the Russians in the war was not worth the effort as when the Russians did leave the war the Americans came in, once they had sided with the allies there was little Germany could do.
Haig’s belief that pressure needed to be relieved on Verdun appears to have been relatively unfounded, especially considering the fact that the Commander in Chief of the French Army had already acknowledged the failure of the Germans at Verdun in May 1916. We are also able to see that relieving pressure on Russia was of little consequence and would have been unlikely to have been achieved by means of the Somme. Considering neither aim was important it is hard to merit the Somme on these grounds.
LAND GAINED As for material gain, the Somme could never have been considered a success or even considered to be decisive in any way. The furthest that any of the allies gained was no more than 15 kilometres and that was after months of fighting and horrific losses. As the "Official History of the War" states,
"For the disastrous loss of the finest manhood of the United Kingdom and Ireland there was only a small gain of ground to show…"
The Germans did retreat to the Hindenburg Line in the Spring of 1917. The Hindenburg Line was a strongly fortified line that had started to be built in 1916. Many believed that this was a direct result of the Somme and that it was an admission of Germany’s defeat,
"…the Hindenburg Line marks the first acceptance of defeat by the Germans; the retreat into it in February 1917 … marks their full acknowledgement." John Terraine, 1965
To the contrary, many other historians, however, regarded this as being an intelligent manoeuvre on the part of the Germans not an acceptance of defeat.
"The Germans began to retreat to this line (the Hindenburg Line) in Feb. 1917, a tactical move of consolidation by them, not an allied victory as some claimed at the time." The Somme 1914-1918: A Study in History Around Us The land gained was minimal and irrelevant. It could not be considered worth the immense loss of life. Whether or not the retreat to the Hindenburg line early the next year by the Germans was a sign of defeat or not, history has shown that it only aided their war effort. It allowed them to make their Spring Offensive early the next year, in 1918 which almost won them the war. All the land in the end gained over many months for much loss of life, was taken back. The land was not held and so cannot be considered relevant to the outcome of the war.
CASUALTIES The Germans retreated in 1917. One of the main arguments for their retreat, other than the declining conditions of their trenches, was the casualties they sustained. The allies lost 620,000 men, the Germans 450,000. On the first day alone the British casualties numbered 55,000. The losses were tremendous with the allies losing far more men than the enemy, 170,000 more in fact. As Lloyd George wrote:
"It is claimed that the battle of the Somme destroyed the old German Army by killing off its best officers and men. It killed off far more of our best and of the French best … the choicest and best of our young manhood"
It would at first seem that the Germans had inflicted worse casualties but in fact this assumption is incorrect as although the allies sustained more losses than they inflicted, the allies had more soldiers they could call upon. Germany, had many reserves but certainly not as many as the allies could manage. This means of war, called attrition, wearing each other down until one can no longer raise an army, is all well and good if the loss of life is deemed acceptable, but of course on such a scale it never could be. This idea of attrition was summed up perfectly by the strategy laid down by General von Bülow at the beginning of the battle:
"The important thing is to hold on to our present positions at any cost and to improve them by local counterattack … The enemy should have to carve his way over heaps of corpses."
The casualties the Germans sustained were probably crucial in their decision to retreat, however, they did not want a war of attrition and so by retreating they brought a halt to it. I believe that the retreat should not have been viewed as a victory for the allies. After all the Germans had inflicted more casualties. Yes, the Germans retreat was due to the Battle of the Somme but whether it can be viewed as relevant to the out come of the war is another matter, because if the Germans had remained the war would have been won a lot sooner than it was.
"Munitions and the techniques of their use improved but never again was the spirit or the quality of the officers and men so high, nor the general state of the training, leading and, above all, discipline of the new British armies in France so good. The losses sustained were not only heavy but irreplaceable" Official History of the War
The German loss of life was far more damaging, but they were never near to losing their whole army. Loss of life is always a relevant factor in warfare, especially in a campaign of the magnitude of the First World War. The loss of German life was relevant as it made up over a third of their total Great War losses. Equally, the loss of allied soldiers could have been just as relevant, had the Spring Offensive of 1918 worked. The Spring Offensive of Ludendorff was evidence that the loss of life on the Germans side was not sufficient to bring an end to Germany’s war effort.
MORALE The constant pounding of the German front line did cause many Germans to lose faith in what they were doing. Many disheartened Germans wrote of the appalling conditions they were in, as one soldier of the 111th Infantry Reserve Regiment wrote:
"There is no longer a question of a dugout for them (German soldiers). There is no longer even a trench, let alone a dugout in the first line. The trenches have been smashed up. The men lie in shellholes … we are slowly going back"
This feeling that they were doomed was common among German soldiers,
"Hans is dead. Fritz is dead. Wilhelm is dead. There are many others. I am now quite alone in my company … anyone who is not wounded falls ill. This is almost unendurable. If only peace would come!" Soldier of the 111th Reserve
The German soldiers seemed to have lost their will to fight. At the same time we must remember that the Germans started an offensive in early 1918 so although their morale must have been dented it had been repaired by this time. This shows that the damage to the German morale inflicted during the Somme was not really of direct relevance to the out come of the war.
German moral was torn apart by the events of the Somme. The allies’ morale was also destroyed but the Germans suffered, not only from loss of life through duty but they also had little food, more disease and due to constant barrage, poor trenches. The morale was certainly an important factor. Not only on the front was moral bad but also in Germany, where many Germans had their morale broken. This lack of morale can be directly linked to the mutiny that brought about the armistice in 1918 and the revolution that followed.
CONCLUSION In this essay I have endeavoured to outline what the aims of the allies were when they engaged in the battle of the Somme and how they hoped to achieve them. I have argued using original sources to support my claims that the allies went into the battle of the Somme chiefly to relieve pressure on Verdun, to achieve a propaganda victory and possibly use this offensive to bring the war to a close. In my opinion, while it is true that German morale took a beating from the allies and this had a substantial propaganda effect on the German people, little else was achieved. The German offensive on Verdun had already been thwarted and their was little hope of keeping Russia in the war. As well, the land gains of the allies were of no consequence as the Germans regained the land in their Spring Offensive of 1918. Finally, allied casualties were unacceptably high, but the Germans had suffered equally even though their casualties were less in number. In conclusion I would argue that the Battle of the Somme did affect the outcome of the war, in so far as the German army suffered an immense drop in morale, one from which it would never recover. This, combined with their tremendous loss of life was to lead to their eventual defeat.