Soldiers wearing spectacles

[Alec McCudden]

I have seen many photographs of German soldiers wearing wire frame spectacles. It occurred to me the other day that I don't think I have ever seen an allied soldier wearing them (other than senior officers).

Were the allies more discerning when it came to accepting short-sighted recruits? Was the German public more comfortable seeing photographs of their bespectacled troops? Did the Germans have better (or cheaper) opticians?

Perhaps I am the only one who hasn't noticed the masses of photographs to prove that all Great War armies had their share of myopic soldiers.

I would welcome comments and perhaps some reassurance that it isn't just me!

Alec

[marina]

Kipling's son had thick pebble glasses with wire frames. There's a horribly sad story about him wandering about wounded after his glasses were broken.

Marina

[DirtyDick]

Hello

I've seen quite a few pictures of British soldiers wearing spectacles, although many are of the Sven Goran Ericksson kind, with very narrow frames that barely show up on the contemporary photographs. These pictures date from all periods of the war - i.e that they were regulars, territorials of Kitchener Volunteers as well as later conscripts - and include infantrymen as well as loggies. There is also the possibility that a good number of soldiers, needing glasses but not acutely short-sighted and thus fit for the Army, removed them prior to the photographs being taken (a la Captain Maiwaring but with reasonable unaided sight) for reasons of vanity.

Not clear about the exact eyesight standards for initial volunteers or regulars during this period, but as said obviously no blanket restriction on spectacle wearers. In the modern Army as long as you can see reasonably enough without spectacles - i.e you are not essentially rendered blind - there is no bar to service in any branch save AAC pilot, so I assume similar standards in operation at this time.

I believe that John Kipling's acute myopia would have rendered him unfit for service were it not for his father's influence with the recruiters. (He was also only 18 when he fought at Loos, whereas he should have been at least 19.) He was last seen running back from the line and crying from the pain of a mouth injury, and despite numerous efforts by his father no further trace of him was ever found.

Richard

[Jock Bruce]

Ivor Gurney is another well known spectacle wearer who springs to mind.

Jock

[Guest stevenbec]

I must admit that I also have no photos of AIF soldiers wearing glasses.

Now on going threw many personal service records I do find many soldiers who suffer during the war from eye trouble but found no soldiers with anything like having glasses noted.

Purhaps as mentioned most soldiers would just take off their glasses before the shot.

Its an interesting subject and with look further.

S.B

[DirtyDick]

Steve

I think that the first AIF units had extremely stringent medical examinations and spectacle wearers could have been excluded on principle: many volunteers were excluded for minor problems - and even missing teeth - which would be of no account in other armies. I think that the Light Horse was even more picky during initial recruitment in 1914.

(Similar - but no means otherwise comparable - to the Waffen SS of WW2, when, I believe, more than three dental fillings could preclude an enlistment although it would have little to no reflection on their general health and fighting abilities: I suppose the search for the theoretical zenith of male health was the same in both instances.)

Richard

[Ron]

There was no National Heath in those days - people went on 'the panel' - whatever that was and it may be that glasses were not readily available.

I have heard that the German NHS was a good deal better than the British.

Ron

[Bob Coulson]

2nd Lt David Philip Hirsch VC of the Yorkshire Regiment has spectacles on in all photographs I have seen of him.

Bob.

[Landsturm]

I believe that John Kipling's acute myopia would have rendered him unfit for service were it not for his father's influence with the recruiters. (He was also only 18 when he fought at Loos, whereas he should have been at least 19.) He was last seen running back from the line and crying from the pain of a mouth injury, and despite numerous efforts by his father no further trace of him was ever found.

This is little off-topic, sorry, but anyone know here I can find more information on this Kipling-issue?

[DirtyDick]

A number of works by and about Kipling relate to this issue: naturally it had a great impact on Kipling and his wife. Can't think of any titles off hand, largely encountered this information through other writers alluding to it.

Best bet for an overview would be a google search since quite a lot of English Lit. types study Rudyard Kipling. Try John Kipling, Irish Guards, Loos etc.

Richard

[Borden Battery]

The Canadian Expeditionary Force [CEF] "demanded 6/6 for the eye a man would favour in aiming a rifle, and many volunteers, unaware that they were short-sighted, managed only 6/18" Bad teeth and flat feet were an even bigger factor ..."

Source: When Your Numbers Up, Desmond Morton, p. 72

Regards

- Dwight Mercer, Regina, Canada

[Guest Northumberland]

re kipling:

Lieutenant John Kipling

2nd Bn. Irish Guards

27th September 1915 Age 18

Buried in Plot VII. Row D. Grave No 2

ST. MARY'S A.D.S. CEMETERY, HAISNES

"John Kipling was the subject of an identification case that culminated in 1992, with him being recognised as buried in the St Mary's ADS Cemetery. He was previously commemorated on the Loos Memorial to the missing. Kipling's father, the famous author Rudyard, spent his final years searching for his son's grave. He also worked tirelessly for the Commission, choosing many of the inscriptions we now use"

I understand that some people dispute this. try

My Boy Jack?

published by Pen & Sword Books

ISBN: 0-85052-859-3

[stevedrew]

Alec,

There were at least two German aviators who were awarded the prestigious "Pour le Merite" (Blue Max) who wore spectacles. Surely the eyesight tests for pilots were even more stringent than those for the foot soldier, yet they passed and performed their duties admirably.

Steve Drew

[terryb95]

Talking about flat feet I tried to join the RAN in 62 and that nocked me back because of flat feed so 2 months later I jained the army and did 34 years? mad

[Raster Scanning]

Here is a Signaller with the Royal Engineers.

Cheers.

[DirtyDick]

I think Capt. Keeley of the SAS, famous for leading the defence at the Battle of Murbat in Oman in 1972, was a spectacle wearer; and that RAF fast jet pilots can now be admitted if they wear glasses, although whether this is for very minor myopia or just for navigators I'm not certain.

Richard

[Robert Dunlop]

There was no National Heath in those days

And there is now???

Robert

[Alec McCudden]

The replies to my queries are very interesting and I have no doubt there are some exceptions. I still maintain however that there are fewer photographs of allied soldiers (ORs) wearing specs than there are of German.

I have a theory; it may be because there were many 'propoganda' photographs taken of German POW's and the photographer selected those weakest, most pathetic looking specimins, often those with specs on? ( apologies to those forum

members who like me wear specs!

As a point of interest, Mick Mannock, arguably the most successfull British fighter pilot was almost blind in one eye and rather than risk failing the eye test for the RFC, he memorised the letter card prior to his medical!

Alec

[duckman]

Just a couple of observations on crap vision from someone who endures it. For the optometrically inclined, I have a +3.25 diopter correction. Without correction, I can read newsprint at about 1 foot, and inch-high lettering at about a yard. I would probably still wear glasses if my vision was half as bad as it is, but better than that and there would be no need.

1. Nearly all the wireframe spectacles I have seen in photos proveide minimal vision correction. Markinbelfast's photo is a good example. You can see a little distortion at the edge of the frame of the left lens - the lower eyelid behind the lens doesn't line up with the corner of his eye (which is not behind the lens). This is caused by the light through the lens being focussed differently to light coming straight from the face. But it is very little distortion, certainly less than mine.

2. Spectacles are worn to correct vision in at least three ways:

Myopia (like me) - shortsightedness - distant stuff is blurry

Hyperopia - longsightedness - close stuff is blurry

Astigmatism - Correction for where the cornea is not spherical - everything is a bit blurry, regardless of distance.

I understand it is relatively common to have different corrections for left and right eye. It is quite possible to be shortsighted in one eye only, but spectacles will still have two lenses (one of which will be plain glass) for balance and aesthetics. Dwight's point is interesting in that the C.E.F. required 6/6 vision (I'm sure that would have been 20/20 at the time, since the numbers refer to metres and feet respectively) in the sighting eye.

Seems to me there would be numerous situations where a vision defect may not have been a practical encumbrance:

Shortsighted in the non-sighting eye - Glasses are helpful and would normally be worn, but are not needed in combat.

Hyperopia - probably only a problem with signalling, transmission of orders etc. For a Rifleman or a Jagdflieger, not an encumbrance

Astigmatism - Many people are astigmatic without even realising it. Again there is the situation where only one eye may need correcting, and even then, the person can probably get by quite well without any correction.

And then there are people like the unfortunate John Kipling, most of whom (unlike him) would have been rejected or relegated to non-combat roles.

cheers

Duckman.

I could never pass as a combat pilot, yet in my current pair of glasses I actually have 6/5 vision in both eyes, which is superior to the requirement. It's discrimination I tells ya!

[Guest Northumberland]

A 'spectacles' quote from "Forgotten Voices of the Great War"

"they'd left their trenches and dugouts.....they were a very poor type of German-they were small,unshaven and dirty, and quite a lot were wearing spectacles, rather like the cartoons of the time of what Germans were supposed to look like"

Captain Douglas Wimbereley, 232nd Machine Gun Company near Cambrai 191

[paul guthrie]

I thought Kipling was 17 at Loos. Yes there is a serious question about Norm Christie's and CWGC acceptance of the argument that the graave could be identified as his.

Kipling was haunted by fact he used influence to get a commission for this terribly near sighted child and very troubled by no grave.

Tell them because their fathers lied!

[P.B.]

I would certainly endorse Alec's theory about the selection of particularly weedy and "inferior" looking German POWs for photography. A good example are the photographs of bespectacled, unshaven Germans -like those mentioned by Captain Wimberley- taken after the Messines attack in 1917.

The German Army actually had issue spectacles -or "Deinstbrille"- available for those who needed them. These are the round, wire-rimmed types seen in most of the photographs. There were also "maskenbrille" which had cloth ear-loops instead of wire arms, these being intended for wear under the gasmask, although I have seen many photos of them just being worn as normal spectacles.

There does seem to have been a noted incidence of spectacle wearers in some German units -in a report compiled after the Christmas fraternisaton of 1914 a British officer remarked that a "large majority" of the German's wore glasses.

The attached photo shows a bespectacled German NCO in March 1918. Hope this has been of some interest,

All the best

Paul.

[andrewcml]

Rather late in the day to contribute to this thread but only just came across it. My grandfather, who was shortsighted and wore glasses seems to have been rejected for service in the army on several occasions from 1915 before finally being accepted for a temporary commission in the RFC, as an equipment officer in November 1917. His application form was then mislaid (by a shortsighted clerk?) before surfacing again in May 1918 (I have copies of it). He then appears to have had just 8 months as an Officer Cadet, before being sent back into civilian life.

Have been searching London Gazette for him to no avail.

[EastSurrey]

According to his WO file at TNA,WO339/53917,Kipling had 6/36 vision in both eyes, uncorrected and 6/9 and 6/6 with glasses. As I referred in another thread, today, my greatuncle, Lt.Reg Howship, 12/E.Surrey (WO374/35203) had worse eyesight without glasses-6/60 in both, 6/6 with glasses. He was nevertheless commissioned in 1918 and won an M.C.

Captain Gerald Tetley, an infantry officer with 9/E.Surrey, is portrayed by one of his men in glasses.(See my article in next month's 'Stand To!')

Michael