I was thinking of the first day of the battle of the Somme. 1916. The British troops about 27 divisions strong attacked 16 German divisions along a defensive line and on the first day the British suffered 63,000 casualties.
63,000. Doesn’t include French or German losses.
The numbers are (hopefully) something we will never see again. 
When I saw the thread title, I thought I was going to be invited to put spin on some indefensible action, just for a larf.
Well, I can’t do it. 63,000 casualties. Damn. Just… damn.
btw, appearently, 8,000 German casualties resulted that day.
Was there any gas being used by the Germans at that time? 8 to 1 casualty ratio is extraordinarily high.
Cicero, it’s good to think. Keep it up. You may want to consider this: 27 divisions (in this battle, about three-quarters of a million men) did not attack on the first day. It was more like five heavy or six light divisions, or about 120,000 men, suffering fifty-percent casualties. By the end of the battle, a million men had died, and the course of the war was…well, pretty much unchanged, except for the fact that the Germans knew the English and French were willing to exchange gallons of blood for quarts of it – in this conflict, no small thing.
IANAH but if movies like Gallipoli are in any way indicative of the strategies of period field commanders, their intent was to win battles by causing the enemy to run out of ammunition, much to the chagrin of their subordinates torsos.
Thank God those days are past.
I’ve not done any research, but suggest that:
the British troops were charging across open muddy fields towards trenches protected by barbed wire while the waiting Germans used machine guns.
the British Generals had no ideas on how to break the stalemate, which had lasted years. They simply ordered constant infantry charges. When eventually the tank was first introduced into WW1, it duly broke through the German lines. But there was no effective followup, the tanks were lost and the Germans promptly copied them.
the troops were recruited by posters saying ‘Your Country needs you’. Men of fighting age who didn’t join up were given white feathers (of ‘cowardice’) by women in the street. The condition of shellshock was not recognised, and anyone who turned back from the battlefield, or refused to fight, was shot as a deserter.
Not our finest hour. I believe the phrase ‘Lions led by donkeys’ was coined to describe the Army at this time.
Spin? They didn’t worry about such things in those days – everything was censored.
I’m actually reading a collection (2 volumes, “Reporting World War II – American Journalism”) that’s quite good. It inclues lots of Ernie Pyle (he was killed late in the war at Ie Shima) and John Hersey’s first eyewitness reports from Hiroshima (about a year after the bombing).
Here’s A.J. Leibling, writing from Paris in May, 1940 for The New Yorker Magazine:
"In Paris, because of censorship, news of disaster always arrived unofficially and 24 hours late. . .
"Le Temps said the German losses were stupefying. All the attacks had been ‘contained,’ but the French Army had executed a slight retreat in good order.
“‘Infiltration’ was a grim word in this war. The communique never admitted that the Germans had pierced the French line, but invariably announced, ‘Motorized elements have made an infiltration. They have been surrounded and will be destroyed.’ Two days later the ‘infiltration’ became a salient, from which new infiltrations radiated.”
So, there is some spin, even in the propaganda.
For reference, Belgium surrendered on May 28, 1940 and Paris fell June 14.
Best regards,
Mooney252
July 1, 1916:
“GERMAN LINES POUNDED
Million Shells Are Hurled Daily by Myriads of British Guns.
FROM YPRES TO SOMME
Defenses Smashed and Communication Trenches Wrecked, Stopping the Food Supply.
GERMAN RESPONSE FEEBLE
Night Raids by British Patrols Are Constant and Effective, Taking Many Prisoners.”
July 2, 1916:
“HOW THE BATTLE STARTED
One and a Half Hours’ Shelling, Then the Infantry Moved.”
“Moved As If on Parade”
July 6, 1916
“BIG GAINS SOUTH OF SOMME
German Second Line Taken Over a Distance of 6 1-4 Miles.
BRITISH ADVANCE SLOWLY
Announce That All Gains Have Been Held and Progress Made at Some Points. PRISONERS EXCEED 15,000
While One French Corps Has Captured 60 Pieces of Artillery ;- Belgians Make Attack.”
July 12, 1916
“VERDUN ‘GERMANY’S DOOM.’
High French Officer Says It Has Made Kaiser’s Army Doubt Itself.”
July 28, 1916
“WAR VIRTUALLY WON, SAYS SIR E. MORRIS”
Premier of Newfoundland Found Germans Ready to Admit Defeat of Kaiser’s Plans."
Aug. 23, 1916
"‘WE CAN SEE THE END,’ SAYS LLOYD GEORGE
Allies Have Only to March Together Steadily as in the Past, He Declares.’
Nov. 25, 1916
“ALLIED ARMEN FIGHT SCORES OF BATTLES
French Aviators Deliver 40 Attacks in One Day and British Fliers Are Likewise Busy. 3 GERMAN MACHINES LOST
Berlin, Puzzled by Slackening of Allied Operations, Thinks a New Stroke Is Preparing.”
The U.S. entered World War I in January, 1917.
Depends who you want to hear. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWsomme.htm
A portion of it says this: Haig used 750,000 men (27 divisions) against the German front-line (16 divisions). However, the bombardment failed to destroy either the barbed-wire or the concrete bunkers protecting the German soldiers. This meant that the Germans were able to exploit their good defensive positions on higher ground when the British and French troops attacked at 7.30 on the morning of the 1st July. The BEF suffered 58,000 casualties (a third of them killed), therefore making it the worse day in the history of the British Army.
It didn’t take such modern technology to kill soldiers on such a scale. The Battle of Austerlitz, in 1805, saw an estimated 16,000 dead on the Russo-Austrian side in a day.
The Battle of Antietam in the Civil War (1862) saw around 12,000 Union soldiers and 10,000 Confederate soldiers slain in a day. About half the casualties took place in one morning.
Don’t need much technology at all to kill a lot of people. War never has been and never will be safe or pretty.
Meh. At Cannae the Roman legions ballsed it all up and suffered an estimated 50,000 casualties in a single day. That’s in 216 BC - none of your fancy muskets and cannon, just get up close and disembowel each other.
Lots of people standing shoulder to shoulder and following a dumb plan is always going to end up in a bloodbath if the opposition is half competent. Hence the modern preference for spreading out a bit more, to the detriment of the local civilian population.
But anyhow, as Mooney252 has already kindly shown us, there was no problem spinning it at the time. If you control people’s sources of information, you can say what you like - I don’t think people were totally fooled, but public opinion was definitely skewed by the propaganda.