I appreciate that to those not immersed in the history of the First World War some of the events I referred to in my "How competent were Britain's First World War Generals?" posting may be something of a mystery. Let's see if we can clarify a few things here:

The Blockade was the Allied naval blockade of Germany that prevented any seaborne trade beyond the North Sea. As a consequence (along with internal German policy) the German people started to starve.

1 July 1916. The beginning of the Battle of the Somme and the greatest disaster in British military history with some 20,000 dead and 60,000 casualties. In some places (though, as I understand it, not all) British troops did, indeed, walk slowly towards the enemy. Further reading.

1st Battle of Ypres. October (or was it November?) 1914. Germans and the British met in Western Belgium. Stalemate. At one point German boy soldiers advanced singing and (I assume) walking. They were cut down in their hundreds. Further reading.

Serbia. In 1914, the Serbians managed to eject the far more powerful Austrian army.

Tanganiyka. Despite 4 years cut off from home, the Germans managed to run rings round the far more powerful British forces.

Palestine. British forces under Allenby (who had previously commanded British forces at Arras on the Western Front) defeated the Turks and captured Jerusalem. Further Reading.

The Middle East. Well, we won.

Ludendorff Offensive. Germany's final, 1918 attempt to win the war. The initial assault, against Britain's Fifth Army, gained an enormous amount of ground. Further reading.

German attack on Verdun. 1916. If memory serves the Germans took 330,000 casualties, the French 370,000. Further reading

Vimy Ridge. April(?) 1917. Canadians took a key piece of high ground. First use of a creeping barrage. Further reading.

Messines Ridge. Using over 20 mines (one of which is still there) tunnelled under German positions, British managed to dislodge Germans from key piece of high ground. As one officer said before the battle: "Gentlemen, I am not sure if we will change history tomorrow, but we will certainly change the geography." Further reading.

Storming of the Hindenburg Line. The Hindenburg Line was a well-fortified stretch of trenches, wire and other fortifications. The British stormed it in September 1918.

Nivelle Offensive. April 1917. French offensive. French army mutinied after the initial stages. Further reading.

Amiens. August 1918. Using over 400 tanks the British inflict massive damage on the Germans taking something like 10,000 prisoners and advancing some 6 miles. Ludendorff described it as: "the Black Day of the German Army". Further reading.

Georgette. German assault on British and Portuguese positions near Ypres. Regained Messines. Further reading.

14 July 1916. Successful British attack following equally successful night-time forming up in No Man's Land. Further reading.

Cambrai (initially). November 1917. First use of both massed tanks and a predicted barrage. Huge British success. Government ordered church bells to be rung for the first time in four years. Unfortunately, three weeks later the Germans counter-attacked and took back almost all the ground they had lost. Further reading.

Le Hamel. 4 July 1918. Australians along with some Americans under Australian general, Monash, and using such innovations as "peaceful penetration" and airborne resupply, do well. Further reading.

The French half of 1 July 1916. Yup, the French were there too.

Passchendaele. Despite the appalling conditions and being the attacking side, the British still managed to inflict about the same number of casualties (about 250,000) on the Germans as the Germans managed to inflict on them. Further reading.

"...the French spent an awful lot of time waiting for the British to get up to speed". At the outbreak of the First World War, the British were able to field an army only one sixth the size of the French and one eighth the size of the German. Despite an enormous recruitment drive it took another two years before the British became a significant fighting force.

All of the above on an "as I understand it" basis.

"Not very" is the standard response. "Haven't you seen Blackadder?" Case closed.

Well, I would beg to differ. I am going to open up the question. Because that's the kind of guy I am.

First question: what do you mean by competence? Winning the war? Ah, that was the Blockade - nothing to do with the Western Front. Well, let's - just for the sake of argument - assume that's true. What, now, does competence mean in terms of the Western Front?

"Not ordering your men to walk slowly towards the enemy?" Yes, but that (as I understand it) only happened once: 1 July 1916 at the beginning of the battle of the Somme. And, anyway, in that case the Germans were just as guilty eg 1st Battle of Ypres.

Perhaps, then, they were all incompetent - every man jack of them. But how likely is that? Are we really to say that not a single one of the armies of Europe was able to produce a competent general? And it seems clear that away from the Western Front: Serbia, Tanganiyka, Palestine and the Middle East, there was no lack of competence. We even have examples, eg Allenby, of generals who were supposedly very mediocre on the Western Front but became tactical geniuses when they arrived in the Middle East.

No, it doesn't stack up. You can't have it both ways. Either there were competent generals on the Western Front or there were no competent generals anywhere. And as Palestine and Serbia rather tend to suggest that there were some competent types somewhere we have to conclude that there were some competents on the Western Front.

But that still doesn't give us a measure. Let's try this one: being able to capture heavily fortified positions, inflicting heavier casualties on the enemy than he inflicts on you.

There are quite a few operations that don't really fit the bill: Ludendorff Offensive - defences not well fortified, 1914 German advance - ditto.

So what do fit these criteria:

• German attack on Verdun
  
• Vimy Ridge
  
• Messines Ridge
  
• Storming of the Hindenburg Line

I am pretty sure about those. There are some might bes:

• Nivelle Offensive (not the disaster everyone thinks it was)
  
• Amiens
  
• Georgette
  
• 14 July 1916
  
• Cambrai (initially)
  
• Le Hamel
  
• The French half of 1 July 1916
  
• Passchendaele

Now, if you accept my criteria then it tends to suggest that the British were really rather good. However, you could just as easily argue that the Germans weren't really attacking and that the Allies weren't really defending. And you could argue that the Germans couldn't afford to lose as many men as the Allies. And you could argue that the French spent an awful lot of time waiting for the British to get up to speed.

Whatever it is, it is not a simple question.

Update 30/07/04

I've added some footnotes to this here.

'One of many first-world-war myths exploded by Holmes concerns the bravery (or lack of it) of Britain’s most senior officers. In fact, says Holmes, some 58 general officers were killed in the war, many near the front line. Ten generals held the Victoria Cross, and 126 the DSO. As Holmes asserts, “Much can be said about the generals of the first world war, but they were certainly not physical cowards.”'

Hew Strachan in the Sunday Times. I wonder what constitutes a general officer and if all of them were British.

Marvellous. Channel 5 (or someone at least) has taken a whole bunch of First World War footage and colourized it and put it out at 9pm on a Wednesday. Marvellous.

And not just that. Somehow they've assembled a whole bunch of veterans (I didn't think there were any left), several of whom have died since being interviewed, to tell us what they remember. And there's a whole bunch of talking heads, including the incomparable Norman Stone, to give us the bigger picture. And they've got Kenneth Branagh to do the voiceover. Michael Redgrave did it for the Great War in the 1960s, Laurence Olivier did it for the World at War in the 1970s and now we have Kenneth Branagh. Forget the Dane, the real mark of a great actor is doing a World War narration.

But the centrepiece of the show is the coloured footage. Sky is blue, grass is green, skin is pink, uniforms are khaki, blue and grey and mud is brown. For some reason the effect is to make the whole event more immediate, more real. Good.

Is here. I really can't recommend this site highly enough. It is probably the best source of information on the First World War anywhere.

There's obviously some sort of inter-blog war going on about this. So some points:

First, I am not sure if everyone is clear on the definition of a casualty. It does not mean a death. Any injury (and I guess sickness can count) that takes a man out of the battle is a casualty.

Second, I read this somewhere that out of a total of 5m Britons engaged in the First World War only some 750,000 died.

Third, in 1915, most Britons would have been serving on the Western Front. The British Expeditionary Force suffered 90% casualties in 1914. It was the only army we had. Considering the desperate fighting around Ypres in 1915 it was amazing there was anyone to spare for Turkey.

Fourth, by 1918 Britain was running out of men (so what happened to the 4.25m who hadn't got themselves killed?). That is why so much of the fighting that year was carried out by Australians and Canadians.

Fifth, Gallipoli sounded a good idea at the time. There was a stalemate on the Western Front and everyone could see that it would take years before you could successfully fight there without taking enormous casualties. The sensible thing seemed to be to look for a "quick win" against those useless Turks. How were we to know that Attaturk and von Sanders would be there?

One final point. Did you know that the bloodiest campaign ever fought by the British Army (in terms of casualties per day) was the Normandy campaign in WW2? The second bloodiest campaign was the 1918 campaign. No one notices if you are winning.