Conscripts- Lost Legions of the Great War

[spike10764]

Conscripts- Lost Legions of the Great War

By Ilana R. Bet-El

ISBN 0 7509 2108 0

This is a book about the men who were conscripted to fight in the Great War. They did not volunteer, they were compelled to go and took part and won the decisive battles, despite the popular image of the willing volunteer. The book is quite controversial and mainly exposes what the author describes as "The Myth of Participation".

Over 50% of the men who fought in the Great War were conscripts according to the authors figures, and most of these fought and died after the Battle of the Somme, during the Great battles of 1917 and 1918. Yet the image of the British in the Great War is one of cheerful volunteer Tommies, standing up for King and Country and putting the Hun in his place. This says the author, is the myth of participation woven around the country's need to give reason to the war. Controversially, it is claimed the Imperial War Museum and the 1964 TV series, The Great War have perpetrated this image. The programme makers sent out requests for surviving men who enlisted Before December 1915 to take part in the show or write letters about their experiences. Most of the material on conscription centres around the Conscientious Objectors and their battles to stay out of the war.

Given the fact that only 5 known memoirs from conscipted men could be found, as opposed the the shelves and shelves of volunteer diaries, memoirs and literature, the author freely admits it is the old historians nightmare of "building bricks without straw". It appears the conscipts did not feel as free to write of their experiences (being conscripted due to circumstance).

and this and the rash of officer memoirs in the 20's and 30's has shaped how the country percieves the British soldier in the Great War. The conscripts did suffer and struggle and bore their lot with the same strength and endurance as the volunteers and they bore the burden of actually fighting the more mobile war, that most of the volunteers had probably signed up to fight- in retreat and in attack.

It is a book to get you thinking, a side to the Great War not often discussed. I would add my own observations, that in my opinion the British resistance to conscription until two years had nearly passed and the early tide of volunteers, perhaps made our army more resistant to the mutinies that occurred in the French Army after the disappointments of 1917. Perhaps we had enough of a core of the volunteers to uphold morale and the newer conscripts had not time to be disillusioned yet. I also think it is a bit harsh on those who were conscripted through coming of age near the end of the War to parcel them up as unwilling.

If you get the chance-read it and decide for yourself

Edited 24 January , 2006 by spike10764

[gporta]

Hi Spike,

I came across the book some time ago and I liked to read it as I had been looking for background information on the issue, and found that the literature about the issue was... well, rather scarce to put it mildly.

Ms. Bet-El mentions at some point that she was drawn to the issue having been a conscript herself, without further data, I suppose she must be an Israeli citizen. Her introduction talking about the conscript soldiers soldiers of the recent Balcan wars is harrowing (here, she comments, is where the Great War originated, and still a fierce war of positions was fought nearing the 21st century)

While I believe that there was great merit in those volunteeering in the early war, I still come across many histories who spend a great deal of space to deal with the regulars, Territorials and Kitchener men, and then, well... there is a short comment about the introduction of conscription in 1916, and you will find more information about Conscience Objectors than about Conscripts... I mean no disrespect for the COs in no way, but, as Ms. Bet-El, I find a bit odd that the Conscripts who joined the army (by far, a greater number than the COs) are left in the dark.

Reading histories, memoirs and comments by those interested in the British army during the Great War (and I hope you will excuse me the blunt simplification) , I get the following impression: Guards looked down upon the rest of the Regular Army ("we're the cream and they are not"), Regulars were comptentuous of Territorials and Kitchener volunteers ("amateurs!"), All these would look down upon the Derby Scheme men ("late-comers!"), and of course, Conscripts were looked down by everyone else -even by COs- ("Aah, you had to be fetched!"), it seems... in this scheme of things I'll see one day the 18-year olds being called up after 1916 despised for not having joined under age...

I read Frederick Hodges memoir "Men of 1918 in 1918": Hodges reached military age in 1917, though he was still keen on joining the army, so he volunteered a few months before his 18th birthday. I take this as an example that among those called up after 1916 there were still some who would have volunteered had conscription not been introduced. However, these youngsters, keen or not, had no delusions of glory: they had seen the casualty lists and the grief of the families around them, so the generation of 1899-1900, the bottom of the barrel of British manhood, went to do what they were told to do without ignoring the dread realities of industrial warfare: they didn't dream about dashing cavalry charges...

The irony is, that those "unwilling" men who were the last remnant of available manpower, were a substantial percentage of the British army which won the war in 1918 (remember the large amount of casualties/prisoners taken in march 1918 by the Germans, many of the surviving pre-1916 volunteers must have been in that lot): one of the factors was that the military training/organization they found was more organized/systematic than that undergone by the early war volunteers, they were trained in modern warfare tactics, and as I said did no longer naively regard war as a colourful adventure, (and another factor might be the following motivation "let's end this ***** war before our sons/kid brothers are called to arms!"... )

Well, my two cents only, after all, I'm no historian. But I believe that the 1914-18 conscripts need vindication: they did their job, didn't they?

Gloria

[truthergw]

Conscripts- Lost Legions of the Great War

By Ilana R. Bet-El

ISBN 0 7509 2108 0

..................................

If you get the chance-read it and decide for yourself

I saw this book in a club catalogue and pounced on it with great anticipation. Books about conscripts, as we all know, are like hens teeth. I have a personal interest since my surviving grandfather was a conscript. A year below the maximum age and the father of seven children. I think anyone who is interested in WW1 should read it but I was, somehow disappointed. I think there is a great book to be written about the part conscripts played in the war but this is not it.

[spike10764]

"Reading histories, memoirs and comments by those interested in the British army during the Great War (and I hope you will excuse me the blunt simplification) , I get the following impression: Guards looked down upon the rest of the Regular Army ("we're the cream and they are not"), Regulars were comptentuous of Territorials and Kitchener volunteers ("amateurs!"), All these would look down upon the Derby Scheme men ("late-comers!"), and of course, Conscripts were looked down by everyone else -even by COs- ("Aah, you had to be fetched!"), it seems... in this scheme of things I'll see one day the 18-year olds being called up after 1916 despised for not having joined under age..."

"Well, my two cents only, after all, I'm no historian. But I believe that the 1914-18 conscripts need vindication: they did their job, didn't they?"

Gloria, I agree with your statement above regarding the heirarchy of "looking down" this book begins to bear that out, even the derbyites feeling slightly superior to the fetched men. I do believe the Conscripted Men require a fuller understanding of their part in the War...they did do their job.

"I saw this book in a club catalogue and pounced on it with great anticipation. Books about conscripts, as we all know, are like hens teeth. I have a personal interest since my surviving grandfather was a conscript. A year below the maximum age and the father of seven children. I think anyone who is interested in WW1 should read it but I was, somehow disappointed. I think there is a great book to be written about the part conscripts played in the war but this is not it."

Tom , there probably is a great book somewhere, to be written on this subject, but I think research is hard to come by(a point the author touches on frequently). It really does appear that the Conscipts are the silent majority, destined to forever remain in silence. It is a shame. My criticism of this book is whilst reading it and seeing all the quoted source numbers, you have to get to the end of the book to find those sources out(I know other books do this...but). In a way having read it I felt the sourcing at the end bore out the lack of resources and in a strange way reinforced the idea that the conscripts were a silent force in the war, unheard, unlamented, tucked away and hidden. I hope this was not the authors intent or maybe precisely to make the point, I do not know, but to me it lessened the impact of the words to hearsay. This I felt was a bit of a disservice to the whole issue of Conscription. I haven't put this very well but the gist of it is I felt there was something missing from the book....but it did make me think and taught me some things I had never considered about the Great War.

[gporta]

(...) I think there is a great book to be written about the part conscripts played in the war but this is not it.

While I agree that the issue is still waiting for the big fat book it deserves, I am of the opinion that the book is a rather decent start point. Before purchasing it, I searched for reviews, and of course, there were positive and reviews and others which weren't so. One point of criticism was that one of the themes dealt with in the book, the shock of change from Civvy street to the life in the army, was the same for Conscripts and Volunteers... Well, of course . Another considered that the "subtitle" "Lost legions" was a bit exaggerated: still 2.500.000 people is quite a number... If not "lost", certainly quite forgotten.

In my view, the book is a remarkable effort to break the ice... particularly considering that bibliography/articles on the subject are not very extensive.

Conscripts did not leave a big body of written memoirs (or maybe they did, but they are gathering dust in two milion and a half attics)... in fact, most remained silent, or spoke little (Harry Patch, who was conscripted, didn't talk about it until he reached a venerable age)

In Richard Van Emden and Steve Humphreys' book "Veterans", Mr. Humphries writes in the foreword "The aim is to retrieve the memories of the tiny and dwindling band of survivors from the heady days of 1914 and 1915 when two and a half million young men volunteered to serve King and Country" at no point of the foreword does Mr. Humphries mention the two and a half plus who were conscripted... the sad irony is, there is a fair number of conscripts recalling their experience in the book! how can you forget in the foreword people which is featured in your book? During the war, men joined the British army in 1914 and1915, yes, but kept joining (and being sent to fighting fronts) in 1916 1917 and 1918 .

I suppose, you think that maybe this is not yet the big book the conscripts deserve... well, while we wait for it to come, those of us concerned with them can do our little bit by writting , each one of us, the page about the ones whose memory we want to vindicate. To remember and preserve their individual stories, each one a little part of the whole story of the conscripts. I think they deserve it.

Gloria

[truthergw]

...................

I suppose, you think that maybe this is not yet the big book the conscripts deserve... well, while we wait for it to come, those of us concerned with them can do our little bit by writting , each one of us, the page about the ones whose memory we want to vindicate. To remember and preserve their individual stories, each one a little part of the whole story of the conscripts. I think they deserve it.

Gloria

Spike, you have put it better than I managed. The book is somehow disappointing and I'm not quite sure why.

It read at times like a thesis. Gloria, I should perhaps have ' accentuated the positive ' more. I did enjoy it and I do think that it is worth reading but I feel that it somehow did not grip me as it should have. If I did not have a pre-existing interest in conscripts, this book would not send me rushing out to find out more. A place on the shelves? Certainly. Great book? Sadly no.

[SMG65]

I read the book a couple of years ago and although I found it interesting I think it loses its way in parts.

I disagree with the term 'unwilling' to describe conscripts. The unwilling were the conscientous objectors.

Most conscripts were willing to go when they were needed. When they were called the vast majority went without objection. They were also more realistic than the initial volunteers, they had seen the casualty lists and spoke to veterans on leave. They went out there in 1917 and 1918 to get the job done and 'do their bit'. My great grandfather was one of them, he had a young son and worked in the iron mills. He was willing to go when called up and this he did, by then he had a baby daughter as well.

He was gassed and died 20 years later from its effects, but never moaned about the war.

He is one of the silent majority who helped stop the Germans in 1918 - The Conscript.

[spike10764]

"I disagree with the term 'unwilling' to describe conscripts. The unwilling were the conscientous objectors."

Fair point, SMG 65. I hope you can tell from my review and the other post that I am not unsympathetic to the conscripts. It was just a matter of wrong choice of wording , I rather meant conscripted men, without trying to overuse the phrase, can I say "(being conscripted due to circumstance)". I have amended my original post accordingly.

"It appears the conscipts did not feel as free to write of their experiences (being conscripted due to circumstance),"

[SMG65]

Spike

I never thought for one minute that you were unsympathetic to the conscripts, in fact just the opposite and your review was spot on.

There are so many myths about the Great War that are accepted because the truth does not fit into the public perception of the Great War.

The volunteer army is one of the biggest myths, as you say the conscripts are hardly mentioned as being in the Great War and when they are the perception is that they weren't brave and had to be forced to go.

I have been researching the Great War for 20 years and still find details that explode myths, (theres a PHD in it for someone out there)

I only realised last week that more Indian troops were killed than Australian and Canadian troops. When are they mentioned in the same breath as 'doing their bit' with other overseas troops.

I am preparing a talk for my WFA branch in March. It is titled '1918 - The Forgotton Year' and the 'Forgotton Army - the Conscripts' will get more than a passing mention.

SEAN

[spike10764]

"I have been researching the Great War for 20 years and still find details that explode myths, (theres a PHD in it for someone out there)

I only realised last week that more Indian troops were killed than Australian and Canadian troops. When are they mentioned in the same breath as 'doing their bit' with other overseas troops."

Thanks Sean, I hoped you'd realise that I was not casting a slur on conscripts. Sometimes what sounds ok when composing it in my head looks awful in print.

I did not ever suspect there were more Indian troops killed than Australian and Canadian(is that combined or singular) and am amazed they are not mentioned in the same breath. There's a book in that somwhere for someone. That's the strength of this forum learning something new every visit

[SMG65]

Spike

Reference the Indian troops, that was singular.

There are numerous other myths and little known amazing facts, we should start a whole topic on them and the Forum could write its own book.

I know 1 July 1916 was a terrible day for casualties for the British Army but did you know that the French lost 27,000 men killed on 22 August 1914! No wonder they appeared indifferent to the British disaster on the 1 July.

What do the moderators think about starting a section on myths and little known facts?

Sean

[gporta]

He is one of the silent majority who helped stop the Germans in 1918 - The Conscript.

Not merely helped stop them, in fact, that army filled with Conscripts broke the Hindemburg line and drove the Germans back as no other Big Push had done in previous years of the war.

The volunteer army is one of the biggest myths, as you say the conscripts are hardly mentioned as being in the Great War and when they are the perception is that they weren't brave and had to be forced to go.

Yes, the supposition that "Everyone volunteered" would mean every British soldier aged 20, 19 or 18 at the time of the Armistice joined under age.

For "not being brave", I bet they helped score spectaular victories in 1918. One can speculate about the various degrees of keennes on war/bravery of the conscripts, but I'd say that every man's case was his own, so there can be no generalizations.

BTW, I recall reading a book mentioning that the older conscripts, while lacking the youthful energy of the younger ones, proved to have good physical resistance to front-line conditions.

I am preparing a talk for my WFA branch in March. It is titled '1918 - The Forgotton Year' and the 'Forgotton Army - the Conscripts' will get more than a passing mention.

Any chance of it being published as an article or book?

Gloria

[spike10764]

Any chance of it being published as an article or book?

Yes, how's about it, Sean, I think it would be interesting. Any chance of making it available for download on here?(after the talk of course)

[SMG65]

I don't know about publishing my talk.

For my talks I just cherry pick information from books and websites such as the 'Long Long Trail'.

I aim the talks to be an hour long and to be understandable to 14 year old history students, they would tell me if it isn't any good or boring.

I find that at this level you are making a talk interesting and understandable to Western Front members with a general interest in the Great War. For those with a keener interest, I don't think my talks break new ground, though they do provoke discussion at the branch.

I'll see how the talk goes down.

Sean

[GRANVILLE]

Chanced upon this book last week and bought it out of curiosity. I note the title its now got is 'Conscripts - Forgotten Men of the Great War.' I have to say I found this a fascinating read from cover to cover even if I found the authors habit of using the phrase 'in other words' a bit tedious. A very worthy read in my opinion.

David

[MikeMeech]

Hi Gloria

I believe, IIRC, that Harry Patch was one of those interviewed in the BBC series 'The Great War', so I suspect there may have been other conscripts as well.

Hi All

The Regulars and TF were already formed units, the New Army volunteers formed new units so they have been concentrated on more, maybe the 'Pals' battalions in particular. The 'conscripts' did not form any new units and went into the ones already formed, whether 'Regular', TF or 'New', which is why they are considered 'invisible'. It appears that many of the units kept their 'identities' even when filled out with many conscripts. The conscripts did have a 'training' system to go through when they were called up and the 'others' could pass on the lessons they had learned. In 1918 it would have been hard to tell the difference on the battlefield.

On the 'killed' figures, India lost 62,000, Australia 59,860, Canada 62,820, NZ 16,710, South Africa 7,120, UK 702,410. So the UK had 494,840 more killed than the rest of CW/Empire troops put together, so I presume the 'British' did not leave all the fighting to CW/Empire troops.

By the way if you are asked by Australians at Gallipoli 'why are you poms here' the UK lost 18,800 troops, Australia 8,100, NZ 2,700 and India 1,360. (figures from Ellis and Cox 'The World War 1 Databook'), so it was not just 'pom officers getting ANZACs killed'.

I doubt it is possible to account for how many of the UK killed were 'conscripts', without a lot of research, and in the great scheme of things is not that important to differentiate.

Mike

[alougheed]

I was part of a panel at the 24th Military History Colloquium at Wilfred Laurier University and one of the presenters was Patrick Dennis. He delivered a paper called "'Slackers, Shirkers and Malingerers' and other Great Myths About Canadian Conscripts in the Great War." His research revealed that about 25,000 Canadian conscripts served in the Canadian Corps from the Battle of Amiens and throughout the 100 Days campaign. Given that we suffered about 45,000 casualties during that period the conscripts represented quite a high proportion of the casualty replacements. Prior to his research it was not believed that any conscripts had reached frontline units as of Amiens. The service of conscripts is starting to get some attention over here, but the research is still in progress and he has not published yet.