Is only 1 view of the War now permissible?

[hazelclark]

Please don't forget that the British Army played a secondary role* to the French, at least up to July 1916 and arguably it wasn't until the failure of the Nivelle Offensive in 1917 that they took the major role.

* I don't seek to denigrate the British contribution or effort but merely highlight that the magnitude of the French effort is often not fully recognised

Nor the French effort in the last 100 days.

Hazel

[phil andrade]

Terraine quotes some daily rates of casualities in the book I mentioned. Briefly these were, as avarages for the period of the campaign: Somme 2,950,Arras 4,070, 3rd Ypres 2,121, Picardy, Lys (German offensive) 5,848, Final Offensive 3,645. PJA may like to comment. I'm not sure if Terraine was the first of the revisionists; but PJA has a point ,Terraines line in the book is strongly made, it was published in 1980. One of his remarks is that it was only in WW1 that the British army faced the main body of a continental army. Something easily overlooked.

Old Tom

The arithmetic for 3rd Ypres is wrong : the figure should be in excess of 2300 per day if the official total of 245000 in 105 days is accepted.

That' me being niggardly about a typo.

The Somme figure of just under 3000 per day is correct, but I do have a point to make here :

The rate of loss in July on the Somme was higher than that of Arras. Of course, July 1st is principally responsible for that ; but thirty one days of Somme fighting that month cost more casualties than thirty nine (?) at Arras. I suspect Terraine likes to emphasise Arras casualties because it was not a battle that Haig really agreed with. I'm a little bit suspicious about Terraine's agenda. He will strive to minimise the casualty rates of 1914-18, and inflate those of WWII, in order to drive home the message that the Great War is too readily dismissed as a senseless bloodbath. But I am in heated agreement with his emphasis that Haig had to shoulder a burden immeasurably greater than that borne by any other British commander.

Phil (PJA)

[davidfegga]

. I'm not sure if Terraine was the first of the revisionists; but PJA has a point ,Terraines line in the book is strongly made, it was published in 1980. One of his remarks is that it was only in WW1 that the British army faced the main body of a continental army. Something easily overlooked.

Old Tom

I've often wondered about this quote from terraine, and I've never quite understood it. The British army weren't facing the Germans alone at any time during the war, the French and the Russians were surely facing a fair few too ?

Dave

[Bart150]

It's about time I took a careful look at this topic.

A good start would be to read a text that gave a calm, careful account in perhaps a couple of thousand words of the views that are held by most people of the 'generals-were-not-donkeys' school and the supporting evidence. Does such a thing exist anywhere on the internet?

[PMHart]

No!

Pete

[Old Tom]

Re Terraines comment about the BEF facing a continental army. I think he was well aware of the points that have been made re French and Russians etc. However he was arguing that the British army, at least in the time of modern weaponry, had often played a supporting role, WW1 1914 and 1915, WW2 North Africa and NW Europe (in NW Europe perhaps an equal role on D Day and for a short time after, but under overall US command). On the western front after the collapse of the French army post the Nivelle offensive and during the 100 days, although under French command, the BEF did face a major continental army and performed with ultimate success. Such operations against such an enemy produce high rates of casualties.

Re Bart150's question. I don't know, but a sizeable part of such an account would have to remind itws readers that in 1914 the UK had one Army Corps in being and that its experience was as a colonial police force. It is not therefore surprising that by the time the BEF had grown to some 50 divisions, some 18 army corps and 4 armies it was scraping the barrel to find the necessary commanders and staff and that not all of these were of the standard of say Haig and Plumer. I, personally, do not like the'donkey' term, I would suggest it was coined by authors who had insufficient depth of knowledge of the operations that they described.

Old Tom

[armourersergeant]

I am always shocked when reading about crass comments by Generals/Field Marshalls like Snow's statement about the 46th NMD at Gommecourt "They showed a Lack of Offensive spirit" he for one did not know what the conditions where like or what he was talking about, just trying to cover his own *ackside.

Dave

Whilst I may agree when Snow made that crass comment he did not know the conditions the troops had fought under,I would dispute that in general he did know the conditions under which they fought. To say otherwise is to ignore evidence that he visited frontline troops, went near the front line and in 1915 at 2nd Ypres was arguably in the frontline and most certainly under fire.

His comments re Gommecourt were however very much an a*** covering exercise and something he should not have been proud of.

Rgds

Arm

[armourersergeant]

Sorry all, still not convinced about Generals being in the 'thick' of it , personally still would rather have been serving as a General in the war rather than a private, has anyone got percentage casualty rates for the different ranks, had always believed that the highest rate for numbers served was 2nd Lieut's ?

To use one division as an example to Generals and casualty rates.

21st division 1915-18.

Brigadier-General Nickalls...KIA 26th Sept 1915

Brigadier-General Rawling KIA 28th October 1917

Brigadier-General McCulloch WIA 24th Aug 1918

Major-General Jacob WIA March 1915, his COS Lt-Col Daniell KIA.

Major-General Campbell whilst serving as 9 lancers Co wounded in cavalry charge, though no evidence found of being in front line as divisional commander that I have come across.

Accounts of Generals being in the front line that I have read pertaining to 21st division:

25/26 September all brigade commanders in front line with troops, evidence seen of Div commander under fire in front line.

1st July 1916: all three Brigade commanders were in action, in front line with their troops.

21sy march 1918: brigade commanders in front line with battalions under fire of advancing German troops, though it could be argued they had no choice in this situation!

These are just examples that I can give off the top of my head and whilst show little time to that of the PBI it does, I feel, demonstrate that Generals did spend time in the line, were under fire and did not shirk thier time with the troops.

Of course their job was to lead, in September 1915 Nickalls led his brigade across No mans Land and in to action, he as seen above subsequently died. In Aug 1918, McCulloch led his brigade across 3000yds of ground at night and was subsequently wounded.

I tire of the perception that all Generals were chateaux dwelling Generals and thus cowards. Many before making this rank had fought , prior to war as subalterns and been under fire and in many others instances later in the war had been battalion officers before rising to Generals rank and thus had been under fire on numerous occasions.

Of course courage does not make an able General and my assertions here are to defend their honour not their ability. Like all soldiers, there lays good bad and indifferent at what ever rank is held.

rgds

Arm

[hazelclark]

They would be in a sorry state if all the generals were knocked off!

Hazel

[Dawley Jockey]

I tire of the perception that all Generals were chateaux dwelling Generals and thus cowards. Many before making this rank had fought , prior to war as subalterns and been under fire and in many others instances later in the war had been battalion officers before rising to Generals rank and thus had been under fire on numerous occasions.

Hi Arm,

I never said that Generals were chateau dwellers and thus cowards in my original post and I do not think that has been stated in any post on this thread (I might be wrong) I was just saying I would rather have been a General than a Pte in WW1 and asked for some casualty rates.

However that does not mean to say that I think that all Generals did a good job cause plainly some didn't and you would see from my other posting I have some personal dislike of Snow and his crass statements etc

Dave

[armourersergeant]

Dave,

Badly linked rant after I put the data up for observation. You may be right re the implication in this thread however it is my perception that the underlying meaning from many is that by not being in the front-line they are dodging their duty. The extension from that is they were cowards. My opinion obviously.

You have good reason to have a beef with Tom Snow re Gommecourt, his conduct has little defence. His comments after less so! The sort of bluff and bluster he was common to grumble.

Rgds

Andy

[PMHart]

Hi All,

The quotes were taken off www.historynet.com/field-marshall-sir-douglas -haig. To be fair it is pretty much a hatchet job on Haig but the quotes are in there and if the Churchill one is factual is quite damning, hence my original question if they could be 'expansions' on what was actually said

Fantastic! Looked up the article on t'internet and it says everything you could wish for in an article for those unable to gain access to libraries, museums, books or any kind of modern research! I do however believe that the correct term for this is a 'sauce' rather than source....

Admiring Pete

[Dawley Jockey]

Fantastic! Looked up the article on t'internet and it says everything you could wish for in an article for those unable to gain access to libraries, museums, books or any kind of modern research! I do however believe that the correct term for this is a 'sauce' rather than source....

Admiring Pete

Glad you liked it Pete

[hazelclark]

Good grief!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Dawley Jockey]

Good grief!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Too what aspect of the postings does that refer to Hazel ?

[hazelclark]

Too what aspect of the postings does that refer to Hazel ?

My apologies! I should not have posted that.

Hazel

[stephen peter roche]

Recently read the last transport vehicle designed for the German army in WW2 was a horse drawn vehicle. Bit amusing to see German re-enactors with a glistening fleet of motors when horse lines would be more representative

Must have had something to do with Europen health and safety laws just like the Gun race at the military tattoo some years back

[Dawley Jockey]

Must have had something to do with Europen health and safety laws just like the Gun race at the military tattoo some years back

Now there's a thought, if we had had the 'Health & Safety' culture we now endure in 1914 the war would never have been allowed as it would have been considered to be too dangerous and someone would have ended up in court

[stephen peter roche]

I am glad you agree if we had corrent europen health and safety laws back in 1914/18 it may have ended in Court or not happend at all after a risk assement of course,Your choice of word to close your personal message was intresting however or did you just not relase it was just to point the different's between then and now out and nothing hypcritical about it.

[Dawley Jockey]

I was just attempting to say that is my innocent view of things and not implying or being hypercritical about anything

[Jesse]

In a nutshell, it's called "Victor's History". Always skewed to show the victors as righteous, you can rest assured if the Germans had won, the histories would be just as self-righteous in their favor. We get the same foolishness here in the U.S., probably worse.

[MichaelBully]

Well yes but with the Great War there has been the whole process of 'Disenchantment' : I have got in to more than argument shall we say with individuals who adopt the view that Britain shouldn't have taken part in the war, and who dismiss any criticism of the humanitarian cost of the German invasion and occupation of most of Belgium as being 'propaganda'.

In some respects the 'disenchanted' view of the Great War presents the conflict with all the attributes of a defeat.

Regards

Michael Bully

In a nutshell, it's called "Victor's History". Always skewed to show the victors as righteous, you can rest assured if the Germans had won, the histories would be just as self-righteous in their favor. We get the same foolishness here in the U.S., probably worse.