Books on the BEF 1914

[Guest]

Ridgus (David) has Martin, he has put details about it here

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9458&page=82&hl=%2Bchallenge+%2Bbattle#entry2057738

One for me yet to read, but from what coverage I have seen of it in the forum it seems to have gone down very well

Hope this helps

Jim

Thanks Jim

I am torn on this one. Just sampling a few random pages there are a few errors. The intro talks about confining the study to first seven Divisions and the Cavalry Division, and the orbat only has 4 Infantry Divisions. 6th and 7th Divs are completely missing. Also he seems to have a slight misunderstanding over the mix of Reservists available to the Army, implying that they were all men who had served seven years before going on the reserve. All this on the first few pages slightly deters me from buying the book. Also regurgitating exaggerated quotes from first hand accounts on losses without cross-checking the numbers, and the numbers of Officers in a battalion is wrong etc. Too many small silly mistakes that I think would simply distract me. It would have to be a 'strong recommendation' to overcome these things. MG

[Jim Hastings]

That is very interesting Martin, and it does ring alarm bells, as you say. A few silly mistakes early on in a book pretty much, for me and I no doubt many others, secures its fate - to lie unread. I know from this and other posts that you have read and researched widely on the BEF in 1914, I'd be interested to know from the listings above which book or books you have found the most engaging and accurate so far?

All the best

Jim

[Guest]

That is very interesting Martin, and it does ring alarm bells, as you say. A few silly mistakes early on in a book pretty much, for me and I no doubt many others, secures its fate - to lie unread. I know from this and other posts that you have read and researched widely on the BEF in 1914, I'd be interested to know from the listings above which book or books you have found the most engaging and accurate so far?

All the best

Jim

I hope I am slightly better read that I was when I initially posted the OP. I will write the long list later and post.

The main challenge is that most people make the mistake of trying to cram this critical history into a single volume and then become under the restrictions of page counts., but to answer your question quickly; in order

1. Murlands two books. I wish I could see the longer drafts as I suspect the material that was left out due to page limitations would be right up my street.

2. Ascoli - but does contain a few errors

3. Zuber - simply because it challenges the mainstream (British) version.

4. Terraine. Not as enamoured by it as others have been.

I would also say that the more one reads the more glaring the omissions and whitewash in the OH become. One of the reasons why I was interested in the Challenge of Battle: The British Army in 1914 is because the author challenges the received narrative in the OH and says it was very influential on most subsequent publications on the BEF in 1914.

I would say the OH vols are still essential reading, but in retrospect I would argue Edmonds did not do the BEF justice in the sense that it was rather sanitised and the extent of the crisis (as I see it) was rather obfusacted, probably for political reasons.

Will revert on a more comprehensive list.

[David_Blanchard]

Any thoughts on Spencer Jones book

'The Great Retreat of 1914: From Mons to the Marne'

I found Adrian Gilbert's book slightly disappointing. I agree with Broomers, workmanlike.

David

[Steven Broomfield]

I liked Gilbert's book, but it could have been better: I suspect, as alluded to above, a lot was left out, and it becomes a simple repetition of what happened, with a degree of analysis to prove the author's point. Worth reading, though (and I'd disagree with his account of Nery, to be honest).

[Jim Hastings]

Thank you Martin,

From what I have read so far Ascoli is up there for me, the first one I grab if I need to check something, although I must admit I have yet to read Jerry Murland's books yet, and know they are highly recommended, so ones for the (hopefully near) future.

Thanks again

Jim

[hazelclark]

I still have a few of those, Norman, and I'd say they're a pretty good series, all in all, by some good authors.

Regarding post 12, and this might be a bit off-topic, but I have tried several of Neillands' books and I can honestly say I've never managed to read more than about 50 pages. Not sure what it is, but I find his style remarklably -well - turgid, to be frank. I appreciate that might be speaking ill of someone who is no longer with us, but I'm afraid it's a fact as far as I'm concerned.

I concur about Neillands.

H

[Guest Peter Houghton]

Hello again everyone - I've been engaged elsewhere and haven't checked back here since i popped the question. Thankyou all for that fabulous feedback, Martin, in particular thanks for your detailed response and to you all for taking the time to answer my quite general question. I take on board all your points about scale and persepective and risks of over statement. Before i sit down to put together this proposition I need to make some clear decisions on format and i suspect inevitably it will be short, and therefore run the risk of not doing justice to such a complex story. At this point I can't let that deter me too much as i still beleive it's an overlooked piece of history and I'd rather say something than nothing. What you've given me here in terms of references and future reading is priceless. Thankyou again and I'll let you know how i progress.

Cheers,

Peter.

[Guest]

Hello again everyone - I've been engaged elsewhere and haven't checked back here since i popped the question. Thankyou all for that fabulous feedback, Martin, in particular thanks for your detailed response and to you all for taking the time to answer my quite general question. I take on board all your points about scale and persepective and risks of over statement. Before i sit down to put together this proposition I need to make some clear decisions on format and i suspect inevitably it will be short, and therefore run the risk of not doing justice to such a complex story. At this point I can't let that deter me too much as i still beleive it's an overlooked piece of history and I'd rather say something than nothing. What you've given me here in terms of references and future reading is priceless. Thankyou again and I'll let you know how i progress.

Cheers,

Peter.

Peter

This is arguably one of the most interesting periods of British Military History. It is steeped in controversy and passions run very high. There is a very large school of thought that the BEF was brilliant but simply outnumbered. This has largely been based on an almost religious belief in the OH by Edmonds which has understandably been used as the cornerstone in most subsequent histories. This has been slightly compounded by Terraine's book on Mons and he is revered so much as an author that few seem to want to challenge his view or indeed the views promoted in the OH. [Edit: this is not a criticism of Terraine, merely an observation as Terraine is a cornerstone reference book in most bibliogrophies]

I have just got stuck into Trial By Fire: Command and the BEF 1914 by Nikolas Gardner - recommended much earlier in this thread by David Filsell. I wish I had bought it earlier. There is a danger of being overly enthusiastic about the views expressed in the last book one has just read, but it is a great read. It has been a two year process to even begin to understand the BEF in 1914 - mainly due to the dominance of the hero-romantic school that sees any criticism of the BEF in 1914 as heresy. Criticism of any part is seen by some as an 'insult' to the memories of the fallen. In the British literature there is an underestimation of the mistakes made by Von Kluck and in some cases his mistakes are interpreted as skillful British generalship. In this area in particular there is evidence of severe problems within the command structure. I don't think we will ever truly appreciate how close the BEF came to annihilation. The BEF in my view was ill-prepared for a European War. It was not simply a matter of tiny scale.

[Jack Sheldon]

The BEF was not merely ill-prepared; it was not prepared at all. If you study the army estimates of the years leading up to 1914 you will not find a single mention of a continental commitment. In other words everything had to be improvised because the British army was not manned, organised, funded or equipped for any such thing.

Jack

[David Filsell]

A brief word on john Terraine. He was of course writing when source material was far scarcer than now - I do not believe he had access to War Diaries - and the pool of knowledge and experience he could call upon was limited. I think his overall view of Mons and what followed remains generally sound. John was a lone voice for many years and also one who offered generous advice and positive views to those who sought it. I had great regard for him his writing and expertise then as I do now. Any one who asks for Gone Fishing at his funeral is a an worth knowing.

[Guest]

A brief word on john Terraine. He was of course writing when source material was far scarcer than now - I do not believe he had access to War Diaries - and the pool of knowledge and experience he could call upon was limited. I think his overall view of Mons and what followed remains generally sound. John was a lone voice for many years and also one who offered generous advice and positive views to those who sought it. I had great regard for him his writing and expertise then as I do now. Any one who asks for Gone Fishing at his funeral is a an worth knowing.

To be clear, my comments were not aimed at being critical of Terraine. With the available material he did an outstanding job. It is perhaps more critical of those who take Terraine as gospel. Terraine was writing in 1960 before the War Diaries were released 1967. I have made this point before on other threads - anyone writing before 1967 outside military circles would only have a fraction of the available material. His book on Mons was for its time quite groundbreaking and remains essential reading, but today, with access to material he did not have it is becoming easier to challenge his views on some aspects. It is part of the evolution of the historiography. From memory I can only recall ever seeing one challenge to his views in all the literature I have read on the BEF 1914.

Now that digitisation is well underway and there is wider access through technology, I suspect there will years of Post-post-revisionism particularly of the OH versions of events. MG

[Muerrisch]

The BEF was not merely ill-prepared; it was not prepared at all. If you study the army estimates of the years leading up to 1914 you will not find a single mention of a continental commitment. In other words everything had to be improvised because the British army was not manned, organised, funded or equipped for any such thing.

Jack

Rather a large claim in a short paragraph! Care to expand a little, so I know what I am disagreeing with?

[nigelcave]

I think the point is that the British Government officially did not consider the use of the army on the continent when presenting the estimates to Parlaiment. What the General Staff might be doing was a different question, of course, entirely.

Without trawling through Hansard I can only go on what I vaguely recall, but I do not think the matter ever came up in Parliament, eg a question on the lines of: "What preparations has His Majesty's Government made for the possible deployment of land forces on the continent in the event of hostilities?" I think the point (ie the lack of any mention in the Army Estimates) was made by John Hussey in one of his excellent monograph articles.

[David Filsell]

Martin,

Not taken as criticism, just an indication of my affection for the man an his work,

[Muerrisch]

Regarding no mention of continental service and unpreparedness, the Expeditionary Force concept enshrined in 1907 by Haldane most definitely envisaged use either on the continent of Europe or on the frontiers of India. Such an EF [not BEF until late in 1914 when the Indian EF arrived on the Western Front] was prepared in extraordinary detail, to fight anyone anywhere using the RN's command of the sea to deliver it safely and rapidly.

The "unpreparedness" of the WO went to such extraordinary lengths that detailed mobilization [sic] and shipping plans to proceed to France were published annually

Here is a typical Hansard extract 1911.

1. The deficiency in the 1st Class of the Army Reserve, Sections A and B, and in the 2nd Class of the Army Reserve, Section D, to meet the requirements of the Expeditionary Force in event of mobilisation in 1913, according to the following table compiled from statistics furnished to Parliament by the Secretary of State for War, and according to statements made by the Under-Secretary of State for War on 15th November, 1910.

§THE NUMBERS OF THE ARMY, OF THE REGULAR RESERVE, AND OF THE EXPEDITIONARY FORCE IN 1913.

By the Army Annual Return published in 1911 the total number of non-commissioned officers and men in the United Kingdom 121,143 There are 28,268 under 20 years of age in 121,143

(A)—From Peace Establishment. Number of non-commissioned officers and men in the United Kingdom 121,143 Less number of non-commissioned officers and men under 20 years of age 28,268 Less 10 per cent. for casualties 9,287 Regulars available for Expeditionary Force 83,588 Number required from peace establishment for Expeditionary Force by Table 1, Memo. of 8th April, 1907 60,927

194

(—From Reserve. Estimated strength of Sections A and B of the Regular Reserve in 1913 106,372 Number living out of the country by statement of Under-Secretary of State for War in November, 1910 7,198 99,174

[Guest]

I recall reading somewhere that the British and French had agreed some years before 1911? at a conference in France on the level of commitment the British Army would have to a continental war. MG

[paulgranger]

I understood that Henry Wilson was the guiding hand behind the deployment of the BEF in support of the French in the event of a European conflict, and that he arranged this some tome before 1914 without reference to anyone else. I may be wildly out in this view.

[Guest]

Martin,

Not taken as criticism, just an indication of my affection for the man an his work,

David. I understand. My clumsiness. I have amended the post to clarify.

[Guest]

Despite the lack of mention in the General Annual Returns there was plenty of debate in the Commons as Grumpy has shown. The interwar period (Boer War-Great War) was a period of huge structural reform and doctrinal change. I think most would agree that the WO had a commitment of an Expeditionary Force of 6 Infantry Divisions and a Cavalry Division.

The extent to which the Army was able to meet this commitment is an interesting question. As one example, my understanding is that II Corps General Staff did not exist at the beginning of the War and had not trained as such. There appear to have been gaps in the manning of key roles from General Staff down.

MG

[Guest]

Back to Books on the BEF

This morning I received "Challenge of Battle: The Real Story of the British Army in 1914" by Adrian Gilbert.

I had been put off this book by the title. I really dislike anything with 'true' or real' in the title. Despite this I found the chapters of Le Cateau particularly interesting and well worth a read. I can't find myself disagreeing with much of what he says. He clearly has waded deeply into the archive material and provides very detailed evidence to substantiate his views - mostly referenced in diaries, memoirs of the people who were there. His research effectively concurs with some research I have done on Le Cateau. I wish I had bought it earlier. It would have saved e a lot of time trying to better understand this period.

I would not hesitate recommending it. At the very least it seems well researched and does provide some robust arguments that the BEF had a few shortcomings. My only criticism is that at 260 pages it is a bit short.

MG

P.S. Thanks to those who recommended it.

[nigelcave]

There most certainly was a British Expeditionary Force worked out before the outbreak of the war; indeed, as pointed out, a number of years before 1914. But it could have likely been South Africa or India as the Continent and nothing specific was indcated in any way by the government as regards a possible continental role for the army - at least in Parliament. Wilson did his thing on his own, sort of; certainly unofficially. The British only had one peacetime corps and therefore only one corps staff extant - II Corps would ahve to be made up from what was available, though of course a lot of those involved could well have served in the peacetime corps structure - which in itself was somewhat hypothetical ...

[Muerrisch]

But it could have likely been South Africa or India as the Continent and nothing specific was indcated in any way by the government as regards a possible continental role for the army - at least in Parliament.

That is called flexibility where I come from!

[Guest]

Trawling Hanzzzzard

Haldane in 1907 was concerned over scenarios where the UK was being invaded.

[Guest]

arch 22nd 1911 House of Commons debate:

Colonel YATE

I should like to ask the Secretary of State for War will he tell us what is really the proportion of Artillery per thousand men in our Army to that of any army on the Continent? And what is the proportion of guns per thousand men in our Expeditionary Force of 160,000 men? My argument is that if a Continental army has five guns per 1,000 men we should have six.