Who won The Battle of Passchendaele?

The Flanders Offensive is remembered for its high casualties, debilitating mud and brutal fighting. Across both sides, there were nearly half a million casualties, for a battle that only advanced the British line by 5 miles over 3 months. It was, on paper, an Allied victory, but one that came at an immense cost and failed to achieve almost all of its objectives.
The Offensive was a series of 8 battles, which by the 1920s had become known collectively as The Battle of Passchendaele. So how did this supposed Allied victory go so wrong? And should the battle have in fact been called off altogether?
Explore and licence the film clips used in this video: film.iwmcollec...
Follow IWM on social media:
x.com/I_W_M
imperialwarmuseums
iwm.london

[@alanwayte432]

My great grandfather was born in1898 and died in1993, he last fought at Passchendaele after joining up at 18, he was wounded three times, being a public school boy he was automatically a second Lieutenant and finished as a Captain. He was an intelligent articulate incredibly quiet man, but often had a thousand yard stare, it was November and we had been digging foundations for the four room extension, it was a very cold clear night and whilst standing outside inspecting the work with my late Father a number of fire works unexpectedly went off, he absolutely collapsed to the ground in tears and began shaking this was in 1974 he was 76yrs old, I was 11 years old, my Father helped him to his feet and we took shelter in our large outbuildings, I sat with him four about two hours as he consumed half a bottle of Brandy the only time I saw him drink, my Father had deliberately left him in my company, and made excuses to friends and Family, he had experienced this a few times in the past and new my Grandfather hated a fuss and embarrassing situations, the benefit was over the next few years he would talk to me privately about his incredibly exciting life, and shared experiences with his comrades, it was a life changing experience for me..I miss him so much to this day ❤

[@jamesross1799]

My great grandfather was at jutland with the Royal navy born 1896 died 1991 I only ever heard him talk about ww1 once and that was a funny story about shore leave. He had scaring on his right shoulder from jutland. He would sit beside the fire at Christmas with what people call a thousand yard stare .

[@SecretSquirrel.007]

Thanks for sharing that snippet from your grandfather's life. I'm sure that those talks you had made even more indelible imprints on your own life as your grandfather was a walking, talking history book not only of Passchendaele but of all his life experiences. I love talking with older generations, they have so much beneficial knowledge to share with us.

[@strychnyne3530]

Thanks for the story. Both my grandpas were killed in the war. One in East Prussia fighting Russians.

[@marklong930]

My Great Grandfather was killed at Passchendaele on the 12th October. He was one of the 2700 New Zealand causalities on that day marking the bloodiest day for NZ's military in any war. His body, like many others was never recovered and his name is in the Tyne Cot memorial. Lest we forget.

[@spoddie]

Mine as well, he was from Christchurch but I can't remember his unit.

[@marklong930]

​@spoddie If you would like to find out, google the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. On their website you can search for his name and it will tell you his Unit, date of death, grave or memorial location and next of kin. A great resource

[@MBCGRS]

My Grandfather was there also. 9th Hawkes Bay, Wellington Infantry Battalion. On a Vickers. Not much fun by all reports... Kia Toa...!

[@DiogoSalazar]

Lest we forget .-.. . ... - / .-- . / ..-. --- .-. --. . -

[@danyelnicholas]

thanks for reminding us. The word Great in Great Grandfather assumes a double meaning. Countless people, each and every one individually memorable, crossed the oceans to fight the Germans and though we might still argue about this battle or that strategy, in the end those great people won and we can never forget this. Tragically, politicians 20 years later squandered their victories and allowed the Germans to build up a new army.

[@briangibbs3774]

Thank-you for this great story of Passchendaele. My maternal grandfather was an English-born Canadian soldier who was there, as well as Vimy, Ypres, Hill 70 and others. He was gassed, but survived the war, only to die of a heart attack at a regimental reunion at the age of 47.

[@haggis525]

My paternal grandfather was at the very same "shows"... though he wasn't gassed he did leave a leg in Belgium in 1918. Back in Canada in 1919 he passed at 57 years old in 1947. He lived long enough to welcome 3 sons home from War 2.

[@briangibbs3774]

@@haggis525 Bless those incredible men! "The Maple Leaf Forever".

[@haggis525]

@@briangibbs3774 They were certainly strong men. As I mentioned 3 of his sons served in War 2... what I didn't is that one served in Korea and then I served in the Cold War.

[@MBCGRS]

My Grandfather was there. 19 years old.On a Vickers machine gun. Received a field promotion to Lance Corporal after preventing the trench being overrun during a night raid by Jerry. 9th Hawkes Bay. Wellington Infantry Battalion. B Company. NZ Army.

[@marklong930]

@@MBCGRS bloody brave men.

[@Reepelsteeltje]

Wat was his name?

[@gwine9087]

My uncle was there, with the Canadians. He survived Passchendaele and Vimy but not the war. Pvt. E. T. Teggin MM, killed in action October 1 1918.

[@SteveMcInerney]

Our understanding from what records we can find, is that our grandfather fought in this one. A 26 year old farmer from Gundagai. It's hard to imagine what he went through. Thanks for this.

[@inorganicchemistry7609]

Lots of people from the Tumut and Gundagai area both.

[@billder2655]

RIP Private Simpson, my great grandmother’s brother died at Passchendaele aged 21, I saw his grave at Tyne Cot.

[@Moggy471]

As Caesar, Hannibal, Marlborough, Napoleon and Wellington knew well; often the decisive factor in battle was the ground it was fought upon. Flanders has always been difficult for attacking forces because of the wet terrain (a factor in the front lines being there in the first place.) Bombarding the already wet ground for 9 days didn’t help. Try wading in water for an hour or so and then imagine doing that for days, in mud while trying to stay alive. The indecisiveness of the result of this battle was not for the lack of courage and determination of the soldiers who fought it. We shall remember them.

[@rogerrees9845]

Another excellent presentation....My Grandfather was there, although he would never talk about it...He spent most of his life following the war sitting by the fire struggling to breathe rarely talking, I think he was badly effected.... Thank you all at IWM... Roger... Pembrokeshire

[@whbrown1862]

Thank you for an informative video incorporating artifacts and context of the of the campaign and the engagement itself. I learned a lot. Thank you!

[@cosnahang]

My Grandfather, an Old Comtemptable, got an MC for laying telephone lines under fire at Paschendale. He never spoke of it but like Haig believed it was a building block for the victory of 1918.

[@Marshal_Dunnik]

General Sir Arthur Currie, commanding I Canadian Corps, objected to the renewed attack but was overruled by Haig. Currie said it could be done, but would cost 16,000 Canadian casualties. The final tally was 15,654.

[@360NoScope-nm3lh]

remember each one of those numbers is somebody who had thoughts and feelings, a mother who took care of them, they would have cried, they smiled and laughed and they had passions and things that they wanted to do in life what a waste

[@richardsimms251]

Extremely interesting program. Thank you. RS. Canada

[@spoonhead1231]

My grandfather fought at Passchendaele as part of the New Zealand division, he was gased and wounded in both legs by schrapnel. My father recalls as a child watching him remove tiny pieces of metal from his legs as he sat in front of the fire place as over the years these pieces worked there way to sit just under the skin using a small pocket knife, he also suffered from the effects of gas damage to his lungs.

[@MBCGRS]

My Grandfather as well. 9th Hawkes Bay. Wellington Infantry Battalion. B Company. I hope they were friends.

[@scroggins100]

I have walked over those fields in november and all I can say is the endurance and courage of that generation is very sobering indeed. I was in company with another vet who simply sobbed when we stood on an old german concrete pillbox and looked at the field of fire from there. Share slaughter really.. And profoundly sad.

[@tillposer]

My grandfather's division was inserted into the line end of October and and at the beginning of November his regiment rached the nominal first line of defense, the road from the center of Passchendaele to the train station in the southeast, which bordered a slight depression in the terrain to the north which shelterd field artillery. He writes "To our left and front in Passchendaele all hell has been released. We are being gently dragged into the vortex. Soon it is impossible to tell the sound of the individual impacts apart. They claw at each other like huge hissing, screaming, scratching, wrestling cat monsters.. and chase through the night in a stomping chase. The demons of the Flemish plains dance like a thousand fatbellies, ...a thousand drunkards, ...a thousand jesters, a thousand fools of gigantic proportions and of a predatory, animalistic fervour for destruction over meadows... fields... paths ...farmsteads ...hedgerows and poor, poor people." He had similar experiences in the first line at the Somme, for five weeks, and the Battle of Arras the same year, where he endured the week of artillery bombardment in the line. At the end of the Battle of Paschendale, his regiment again had lost about 40-50% of its strength and he was tasked to extricate the rest of the regiment's three machine gun companies.

[@jonmce1]

General Currie of the Canadian corps told Haig that taking Passchedaele had no strategic value and tried to convince him not mount the attack on Passchenaele. He said it would cause 16,000 causalties for no strategic gain. Haig ordered the attack to go in. The Canadians took Passchedaele and had 15,000 casualaties. As Currie stated it gave no advantage and unltimately taken back by the Germans from the British.

[@robinbunchofnumbers4566]

I’ve been reading Undertones of War by Edmund Blunden. His account of the battle is truly haunting. By the way IWM your videos are absolutely excellent.

[@54mgtf22]

Thanks IWM. Always interesting

[@AlanBlack-c9t]

My Grandad won a DCM here, near St Julien while serving with 9th Royal Scots

[@leftcoaster67]

Melchett "And Field Marshall Haig is concerned this maybe depressing the men a tad. So he's looking to find a way to cheer them up.." Blackadder: "Well his resignation and suicide seems the obvious answer..."

[@dennis2376]

Thank you.

[@14rnr]

Thank you

[@willlavellebowden]

Its macabre how we allowed ourselves to descend to this

[@MilitarySummaryChannel2024]

*Six miles of ground has been won. Half a million men are gone. And as the men crawled the general called. And the killing carried on and on. How long? What's the purpose of it all? What's the price of a mile?*

[@Septimus_ii]

It quickly became clear that the miles were so few as to be meaningless. They kept the attack going because they reckoned that killing the German soldiers was more valuable than saving the Commonwealth ones. They were probably right. What a horrible war.

[@DinoNut88]

Sabaton

[@bigblue6917]

My paternal grandfather was with the Royal Garrison Artillery at Passchendeale having already fought at the Somme. He survived the war

[@00yiggdrasill00]

If theres one thing ive learned studying military history, its that breaking fortified high ground always sucks. Once bad communications and weather is added it gets worse.

[@andrewburke9390]

To what degree did the ground gained in 1917 debilitate Operation Michael in 1918, making Amiens easier to hold that spring / summer? Especially noting the geography and geology of the area? Thanks so much for posting such a fair and reflective video

[@Cheka__]

It's like I always say: War, what is it good for.

[@RStantun]

My Great Grandfather managed to survive the battle only to be reported missing presumed dead near Tynecot a couple of weeks after the battle supposedly ended.

[@IverKnackerov]

It’s sad how many times ground won, was then lost to a counterattack.

[@_Wombat]

I absolutely hate mud, what these men went through will always have my respect.

[@colinmccarthy7921]

I would assume the British had air planes that went over the Battles,to see how things were going.

[@nathansullivan4433]

Least bloody WWI battle be like…

[@marklittle8805]

I would argue there were just greater losers in this mess than any true winners. The mud, the horror and chatter of machine guns and shelling made it misery

[@takedakiwi]

12 October 1917 was the single deadliest day in New Zealand history. Interesting fact- between June 1917 and February 1918, 1.5% of all living New Zealanders and one in 16 of all military age males, were killed or seriously wounded in Belgium. Lest we forget

[@oneshotme]

Looks like parts of Ukraine right now I very much enjoyed your video and I gave it a Thumbs Up

[@DinoNut88]

Ukraine started the war and Ukraine belongs to Russia and Ukraine is Russian land

[@DavidGoliath-pu3np]

Canada, the sword of the Empire in WW1

[@timmaxwell2348]

In war there are no winners, only widows.

[@glynluff2595]

I think we all forget the the generals were commanded in Britain to advance. A number argued against it but the command had been made so all had to obey from the top down. The politicians on the allied side did not wish to be seen to to be seen to be promoting the attacks but the military were instructed and the politicians lied afterwards. No change between then and now! Then the politicians retained the reserves in Britain and left the army without reserves. Lions led by donkeys was a fair comment but the donkeys were often the politicians as well as some of the generals. Some criticism of the staff corps is also fair as they did not wish to admit their own failure throughout the war because they were relatively comfortable and to admit that supplies were either not available or misplaced was hugely critical of their own abilities as well as the intelligence misreading of the areas under their control. History is unforgiving of them but at the time protest could not be issued as the firing squad stood ready to do as commanded.

[@andrewthomas695]

Who won? Not the soldier on the ground. That's for sure.

[@clivebroadhead4857]

No one won the battle of Passchendaele. The clue is in the museum's name.

[@hadial-saadoon2114]

Haig wasted lives like Napoleon, without the results.

[@rob5944]

To me documentaries such as this go to show that there were no easy answers, even attenpts to outflank such as the Dardanelles campaign proved ineffective, given the technologies of the time. Only blockades and military mass could provide a lasting breakthrough, as demonstrated by the Royal Navy and the American Army. The latter made more effective by the precarious state of the Gemsn economy, shortage of foodstuffs, and sheer exahustion of the all the European armoes by 1918.

[@alganhar1]

The American Army did not enter the line in anything over Divisional strength until the second Battle of the Marne in July 1918. Before that battle they had only entered the line in limited numbers, in quiet sectors of the front. In the last three months of the war the British and Commonwealth Army took more ground, more prisoners, more artillery and more machineguns than the Americans, French and Belgians combined. Indicating it was the British who were doing the lions share of the actual attacking in those last months, not the Americans who were bogged down in their own Somme on the Meuse-Argonne. It was not American mass that changed things on the Western Front, and claiming it was does disservice to all those who fought and bled in the last year of the war. At best the presence of American troops shortened the war by as much as six months. Had the war gone into 1919, then things would have been very different. In that case the AEF WOULD have been the primary Army on the Western Front, but it did not last into 1919. The entire American premise was to get the AEF ready for a pivotal role during 1919. In 1918 the vast majority of the AEF were not ready for action, they had not completed the training all IS Divisions had to undergo upon reaching France because training in the US was a flustercluck. And that is the assessment of the world expert on the AEF, a former US Army Armour Colonel now Historian, lecturer at the US General Staff College, Dr Richard. S. Faulkner. I suggest you read his books, they are illuminating when it comes to the (and I quote) 'criminal state of training', in his own words he describes the poor training in the US literally as 'murder'.... He was rather scathing. Though he did point out the US learned from that experience, which really, really helped out a little over twenty years later where they got things right.

[@armyman-ig7qs]

Pointless? It was one of Iron Maiden greatest songs

[@iplanes1]

I shall watch the video in a moment but the question of "Who won the battle of Passchendaele?" is a rather meaningless one. The thousands of grieving mothers, fathers, wives and children of England Scotland France GermanyWales Ireland and probably others mean there were no winners. It was simply a testament to stupidity and ignorance.

[@scroggins100]

I was going to give a contra argument.. But, I cant! It was senseless and tragic.

[@IverKnackerov]

That’s simplistic. It wasn’t “stupid” …. It was part of a massive struggle and whilst it’s possible to argue the whole WW1 was tragic, hindsight is a wonderful thing

[@rudolfrednose7351]

Wasn’t the reason for trying to throw back the Germans here that it was the last part of Belgium the Allied were still able to hold on to, just long enough for the American government to get their nation to agree to enter the war? If the Germans won the war, they could demand the Belgian Congo as a reparation payment. The American business tycoons didn’t want the main source of rubber to fall into Germany’s hands.

[@axelrodaxel]

loved when they brought in the Canadians :D

[@williestyle35]

Last time I was this early to an Imperial War Museum video... the British "red coats" were still fighting the Boers in South Africa. 🌐

[@Antmann71]

Who won? Death won...

[@JeffBilkins]

5 miles in 3 months isn't the worst you can do, even in modern times.

[@ant-i6g]

Certainly in the Ukraine Russia war attritional war it was

[@marklittle8805]

The Russians are trying to top those numbers

[@JesterEric]

Ukrainian counter offensive Summer 2023 that was supposed to reach Crimea. They have been advancing backwards at an increasing rate ever since

[@marklittle8805]

@JesterEric the Ukrainians have held off the allegedly superior opponent with some leftover goodies from NATO nations. At the rate Putin and the Russians are going, they will be decades taking Ukraine. Oh, and you ignore 1200 square Km of Kursk the Ukraine is sitting on. Funny how that worked

[@BICHETO]

Who actually won the battle? The weapons manufacturers and sellers.

[@doodlegassum6959]

The bankers

[@BelleBlu]

Alex Harvey, "Don't make any bullits, don't buy any bullits, don't shooot any bullits because when you do you just make a rich man richer!" 🎶

[@davidhatton583]

I have read that Haig had some weird religious beliefs that he had been given this job by God. Recently I have seen several ‘revisionist’ reviews of the WW1 top Generals, claiming they really were competent and did their best w technology of the time. I think this presentation is more accurate than most… and actually shows the peerage buffoonery on both sides that resulted in an unconscionable slaughter of brave ordinary men.

[@moroguin1331]

250000 casualties for 5 miles average ww1 battle

[@samsonsoturian6013]

Land gained isn't as important as line broken. Lines broken were generally never retaken and huge areas went without a fight

[@anthonyeaton5153]

Please provide evidence of your claim about the casualties.

[@rick7424]

​@@anthonyeaton5153He is joking about the static warfare of WWI.

[@tomhenry897]

The British As they were able to replace their looses as the Germans couldn’t

[@jammyscouser2583]

The battle was won by the ferryman

[@kieranb7582]

Great documentary! Although I would say that using the modern-day Canadian flag makes sense in making clear that these units are Canadian. However, it's the wrong flag to use nonetheless.

[@alexwood5425]

Pyrrhic victory.

[@lllordllloyd]

The IWM's videos will not stand th etest of time as they espouse currently fashionable mythmaking, over-correcting the critics of the 1960s. 1. (1:40). Britian did not 'need to divert German attanetion away from (the French)'. The Germans had just retreated into a massively expensive line of fortifications, to economise manpower. They were certainly not in any posiiton to repeat Verdun, and were not for a moment contrmplating attacking the French. Had they, the French were ready to defend. The 'we must help the French/the French made us do it' myth was used by Haig (usually retrospectively), and usually has little basis in evidence. 2. (4:10) The video implies heavily that Haig's desire to push on immediately after Messines was intelligent. Plumer had only secured his victory... one of the few with the casualty lists favouring the British... by keeping his men under the protection of their artillery. Haig never truly understood the importance of artillery in his instinct to break the line and release the cavalry. No serious historian takes Haig's side against Plumer (a cautious and methodical man Haig did not like). The reflexive tendency of some cavalry generals to push beyond artillery cover and lines of sight had caused many a promising start to be thrown away. Plumer was determined not to let that happen. 3. (4:50) The narrator implies the 'political delays' are the cause of the battlefield being waterlogged: typical of recent mythmaking where all military failures of Haig and Gough are really caused by 'politicians'. While the weather was worse than usual, this battle was always likely to involve a lot of mud... and senior commanders would be well advised to pay close attention to weather and ground conditions but... 4. (12:00) ... the final attacks were some of the least justifyable actions of the British Army in the War. The narrative seems to emphasise 'communication problems' causing misplaced starting lines, as the reason attacks failed. This is oddly specific. The mud was now making all aspects of warmaking completely untenable near the front, and the ignorance of the conditions is a major reason for the 'chateau generals' idea. These conditions were bound to be of enormous tactical importance, and every front-line officer was sending back information explaining what was going on. The utter disconnect of the high command from front-line conditions, after so many years of war, is an indictment on how BEF HQ operated. 5. (12:40) We then have the passive-voice 'in order to secure higher and drier ground'. Like 'helping the French', we must interrogate these excuses for continuing a doomed offensive. Anyone who has been to Tyne Cot (the approximate Allied start line) knows Passchendaele village is really no higher. The British Army had already spent the whole war on the low ground around Ypres. (The tank imagery here is clearly not from Third Ypres, where tanks almost never operated in favourable conditions... by October few remained... because the advice of tank officers was routinely disregarded by BEF HQ). The drama and controversy surrounding these attacks is barely mentioned: there is a comment below about Canadian general Currie, who refused to fight under Gough and regarded the attack as futile. While numbers are bandied around until they are meaningless, the 16,000 men he lost to take that last kilometre would have been very useful the next year. Indeed, the Cambrai breakthough in a couple of weeks would go begging for want of infantry. The Germans had men arriving in numbers from Russia (where fighting had all but ended), but Haig remained convinced the Germans were about to collapse. And Plumer wanted to keep attacking, his only 'bad call' of the war. The New Zealanders attacked in waist deep mud, often machine gunned while unable to even take cover. As with Beaumont-Hamel the year before, there is evidence Haig wanted Passchendaele as a 'prize' to justify all that had gone before, and distract from his, again, very much failing to live up to pre-attack promises. As presented, these worst-led periods of the battle are presented as logical and necessary: a miscommunication here, a desire for dry ground there, and Haig 'calls off the battle'... never mind it was November and the weather had decided the battle was over weeks earlier, with Haig merely coming out of denial. His claim with which the video is closed: "Haig believe his attritional campaign made the 1918 victory possible" is another retrospective justification: Haig was rarely seeking 'attrition', which requires a battle to be fought like Plumer and Rawlinson wanted to: carefully, with lots of carefully-used artillery. Haig was always trying to 'thrust' and make grand breakthroughs. He is damn lucky he did not break his army like the Russian and French armies. The overall summary of the battle is good. You at least mention the results against the original objectives, something rarely heard for the Somme. The failure of the War Cabinet to do anything about the battle is also important.

[@raemont1328]

The mud

[@johnnydavis5896]

How about the allies stay on defense? The food crisis brought on by the blockage is what brought down Germany not these meat grinder battles.

[@alganhar1]

Would you stay on the defence if a third of your country had been taken by an enemy? Or 90%? That was the case for the French and the Belgians. There were reasons the Entante could not stay on the defence, all good ones for the time, all conveniently forgotten by people who do not have a clue what they are talking about. The people who pontificate about 'how they should have stayed on the defence', or 'the should have made peace', are generally not from the countries that were invaded, and upon whose soil all that blood was spilled.

[@stevesmodelbuilds5473]

Who won it? Canadian Gen. Arthur Currie.

[@anthonyeaton5153]

Now now don't try to skew history.

[@stevesmodelbuilds5473]

@@anthonyeaton5153 My comment was not meant to diminish the sacrifices of others, but to highlight Lt. Gen. Currie's brilliance as a tactician. After months of failure, Haig approached Currie -- who, after the victory at Vimy, had emerged as the Allies' most competent General and Monash) -- to plan for taking the ridges. Currie knew the near-exhausted Allies wouldn't be able to exploit a 'breakthrough' to the coast, and raged against it: "Why? It means nothing! It isn't worth a drop of blood!" Haig: "I will tell you why [the French mutiny] some day , but it MUST be taken." Following orders, Currie made a plan, and correctly estimated casualties of 16,000, almost to a man. On the eve of battle, he again asked (pleaded) if it would be worth it, but Haig ordered him to proceed, so he did -- and the Canadians took the ridges in a set-piece battle over two weeks. The Germans hadn't been 'worn down' by previous assaults -- they were defeated by a superior force with outstanding leadership. In the end, it was all for naught, but it was Currie's plan and the Canadian Corps who accomplished the task, and 'won.' For an for an in-depth analysis of the battle, read 'Legacy of Valour' by Daniel J. Dancocks , along with his book 'The Last Hundred Days' -- both help to 'unskew' some history.

[@chrisdawson8517]

Haig was an incredibly stupid leader, more used to fighting natives with spears. This war left him behind…

[@alluraambrose2978]

Very secret signed by Bond, could it be?

[@aarontheamazing1985]

Me i won

[@janlindtner305]

👍👍👍

[@geordiedog1749]

There’s a new trend in WW1 history to portray the generals are more professional and competent. They were neither. Some of them may have been a bit less callous and detached and somewhat more effective in local actions but they were often removed through jealousy and nepotism. British generals were the antithesis of class snobbery and were tactically inept and slow to react to a new situation. French and German brass weren’t much better but this just extended the bloody stalemate. Generals cannot be expected to make battles without losses but to suggest that they weren’t “donkeys’ is only right in that donkeys were very useful.

[@anthonyeaton5153]

@@geordiedog1749 Nonsense! Those generals actually won the war .

[@adrianbruce2963]

Isn't it good to be the antithesis of class snobbery?

[@robinbunchofnumbers4566]

Easy to say they did a bad job. More difficult to say what you would have done in their place with the knowledge and tools at their disposal. They didn't start the war and they didn't have the mandate to end it.

[@ineptwizzard]

I don’t think you understand what antithesis means pal.

[@alganhar1]

The top British Officer from 1916 to 1918, what at that time was called the Chief of the Imperial General Staff (CIGS), was a chap by the name of Sir William Robertson. His father was a Postmaster, his mother a Seamstress. Notice anything about his parents? Thats right, they were not noble, or upper class, they were not even MIDDLE class. Sir William Robertson is the ONLY man in the history of the British Army to join it as a Private, and retire a Field Marshal. Field Marshal Haig, was the son of a Whiskey Distiller. Again not upper crust, at best Haig was upper middle class. A man like Robertson does not rise from Private to Field Marshal, by being stupid. He also had zero issues removing any upper crust Generals who did not perform. You, know a lot less than you think you do, and are incapable it appears of assessing how these men fought the war based upon what THEY knew at the time, on the information THEY had, the technology available to them AT THE TIME. Its all very well idiots like you judging people based on modern morality, modern knowledge and modern technology, but it does not mean you will EVER be right in anything that comes out of your mouths. Like most of the Lions led by donkeys crowd you are a stupid little man looking for a simple explanation upon which you can pin blame, and the Generals make convenient scapegoats... You are all too lzy, or too stupid to really look at what they had available to them at the time, and make more balanced, reasoned assessments based on what they might reasonably have been expected to achieve given the resources and knowledge available to them.... These are the men who INVENTED the fundamentals of modern combined arms warfare. Fundamentals still in use and recognisable today.

[@TinaHollner]

This sad part of our history happened more 100 years ago, so perhaps it is about time to drop the patriotic glasses and look at what really happened on both sides of the battle. This way we may actually be able to learn from what happened and why things were done this way. Instead we see a rerun of old propaganda, and no one gets any wiser. I assume that the purpose of any true historian is to learn from our mistakes..

[@brianlamb7937]

It's more who lost less than who won

[@alganhar1]

Unfortunately that is the brutal mathematics of attritional warfare. Who wins and loses, is, at the end of the day, down to whoever runs out of men and/or supplies first. And of all wars in history, WWI is probably the best example of an attritional war. The reasons why it was fought the way it was are complex, but very, very real, and very few of those reasons are down to the stupidity of the commanders. A mixture of advances in some technologies, and stagnation in others meant WWI on the Western Front was never going to be anything other than the brutal attritional slugfest it turned out to be. And in that kind of war.... If the other guy loses more, and/or is less able to replace what is lost, you win....

[@anthonyeaton5153]

Third Ypres shattered the German army especially their storm troopers divisions, thus weakening it before the ill fated Spring offensive in 1918. The battle 1917 was fought to stop the French army from disintegrating due to mutiny and very low morale.

[@TheCosmicGuy0111]

Yep

[@sillypuppy5940]

The mud won

[@ALA-uv7jq]

Lions led by donkeys. Pathetic waste of lives.

[@anthonyeaton5153]

Wow! How original.

[@petekennedy3013]

Boy, you guys don’t know what victory means. It was a complete disaster for both sides. Nobody “won.” Everyone lost.

[@Bucky12g]

"Who really won though" -every 5th unoriginal comment thinking they're being deep and poetic.

[@samsonsoturian6013]

Everyone was fighting a mobile war with siege weapons. Any success/failure was just luck anyway

[@handsken1234]

Every WW1-battles were pointless..

[@maximilianodelrio]

In the context of the war being a pointless waste of life? Yeah. Within the military context of the war? No. These battles had very big effects that weren't immediately seen, after the battles of 1916 Germany was forced to stay on the defensive, for example

[@zebradun7407]

Dentist with waterloo teeth and the undertakers won.

[@TheChiefEng]

Considering the limited movements during most of WWI on the western front, the amount of casualties in WWI were simply unparalleled in history and the human race has still not learned the lesson. War has never really solved anything. WWI was known as the war to end all wars and yet, WWII happened only just over 20 years later. Again, people believed that WWII was the war to end all wars. At the end of the day, we are stuck on a tiny planet in a solar system far removed from anything else in the galaxy and yet, we do our best to make sure the human race will just be a tiny blip in the history of this planet. The human race simply don't deserve to survive. The planet will recover long time after the human race is gone and in 20-40 million years another dominant species will emerge like it has been the case in the past. Human beings have never managed to evolve sufficiently to put away politics, religion and the quest for power and wealth and instead focus on how the planet and the living species on the planet may survive. The human race simply don't deserve to survive.