johnboy Posted 5 October , 2013 Share Posted 5 October , 2013 I have put up Field Service Manual of the time, seen examples of paybooks and wills and to me, that is evidence enough that in most cases the wills ,if in the paybook were removed from the bodies. ONE example of an instruction in a war diary does not a summer make. I promised myself a good few posts ago to ignore this thread as one person thinks he is the only one that is right. In light of the sarcasm and the overwhelming evidence I will treat the question as answered and take no further part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Tulloch-Marshall Posted 5 October , 2013 Share Posted 5 October , 2013 ... it's been pointed out an example you attempted to use to support your argument has no merit, ... If you have convinced yourself that your knowledge of the modus operandi of the British Army during WW1 is robust enough to convince yourself that you are right and I am wrong, then so be it. ... ONE example of an instruction in a war diary does not a summer make. Ditto. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithmroberts Posted 6 October , 2013 Share Posted 6 October , 2013 Enough. No more sarcasm please. It is possible for a rational person to accept that instructions were generally followed, but also that there were many occasions when they were not. Tom's reference to such things being left behind when men went on on a trench raid is I am sure far from unique and I'm fairly sure that I have seen similar instructions in papers relating to the preparation of a trench raid in the salient during 1916. . Both sides tried to make the identification of units a challenge, and the identification of enemy units was after all the purpose of a number of trench raids. It might even be seen as logical that when instructions to leave paybooks behind were specifically issued, then that was not the norm. To confirm the facts in a specific case would be difficult in any event as the absence of a written order is not proof of anything, but equally there is sufficient evidence quoted above to support the view that some paybooks were collected/removed from bodies. There is surely sufficient here to draw reasonable conclusions, bearing in mind also that detailed orders may well have varied in different units. There is unlikely to have been absolute consistency at any stage of the war, and certainly after the massive changes that came into place as the old regular units were so badly hit. Anyway - no more sarcasm from any source please. Keith Roberts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithmroberts Posted 6 October , 2013 Share Posted 6 October , 2013 I'll come back a little more. I have edited a handful of posts slightly, as well as hiding a couple. There are some real points of debate above, and tetchy and offensive comments don't help, whoever they are from. The subject does have interest, I really don't want to lock it. We have examples of the instructions, we have evidence that from examination some wills appear to have bloodstains, and also evidence of circumstances in which orders were that such items should NOT be carried. One thing I have learned about this war is that few things are simple. Evidence has to be weighed, and conclusions often rest on the balance of probability, rather than certainty. By all means please let us have evidence beyond possibly some planning for trench raids about what might be carried, but lets maintain a civilised debate, even when we interpret things differently. Keith Roberts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Tulloch-Marshall Posted 11 October , 2013 Share Posted 11 October , 2013 ... Evidence has to be weighed, and conclusions often rest on the balance of probability, rather than certainty. ... Keith - the balance of probability, and, I'd have to suggest, experience of the primary source documents, and common sense. I've edited this down to a bare minimum and I'm not going to respond to any particular view(s) or opinion(s) which have been expressed so far. However, much of what has been claimed rests upon the idea that if something is clearly stated in a War Office document to be a War Office requirement, then that "thing", whatever it was, must have been "the rule", - the status quo, if you like. It was something to be adhered to and obeyed, whatever. I would suggest that over and over again the primary source documents and other relevant sources tell you that that was not the case. I contend that soldiers carrying wills, in the way which has been claimed, is one of those cases where reality did not match what was stated in the WO document. By way of example - "The Bible" of the British Army of WW1 - King's Regulations And Orders For The Army 1912; Re-printed with Amendments published in Army Orders up to 1st August, 1914" Paragraph 1173 - By which means "we can demonstrate" that the British soldier of 1914-18 was given three meals a day - breakfast, "dinner",(*) and invariably, an evening meal. I don't think there is any room for misunderstanding here. The War Office requirement is quite clearly stated, and you, me, my uncle and my uncle's dog, and the man on the Clapham Omnibus all know that that War Office stipulation was not carried out on an absolutely stupendous scale. - QED. Tom * If "dinner" and "evening meal" both being given to the men is causing confusion, then substitute luncheon (lunch, if you like) for "dinner", and it will make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now