kenneth505 Posted 25 May , 2014 Share Posted 25 May , 2014 These are tiny sums to compensate for a nation asking a person to become what they have to become to successfully prosecute a war. There should be more compensation to all members of the military but we live in a world of finite resources and an unwillingness to distribute those we have more equitably. Still since RHIP there is a bit of thank you for those at the top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 25 May , 2014 Share Posted 25 May , 2014 Oddly, I'm pretty relaxed about Haig (or Kitchener, or Roberts, or Marlbrough, or Jellicoe, or Beatty or anyone else) getting a hefty reward. Had any of them contrived to lose the wars or campaigns which they prosecuted, Goodness knows where we would be. And dare I say something un-PC, but the responsibility of leading successfully an army of thousands or hundreds of thousands probably deserved recognition and reward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
towisuk Posted 25 May , 2014 Author Share Posted 25 May , 2014 Oddly, I'm pretty relaxed about Haig (or Kitchener, or Roberts, or Marlbrough, or Jellicoe, or Beatty or anyone else) getting a hefty reward. Had any of them contrived to lose the wars or campaigns which they prosecuted, Goodness knows where we would be. And dare I say something un-PC, but the responsibility of leading successfully an army of thousands or hundreds of thousands probably deserved recognition and reward. Meanwhile the men who actually put their lives on the line were worth......what????? Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigelcave Posted 25 May , 2014 Share Posted 25 May , 2014 Well yes, but the generals put their lives on the line, as we know; yes, even Sir DH (eg the ride up the Menin Road). And we also know that Haig, at least, spent a good chunk of the rest of his life trying to do his best for those who fought and their dependents. If we are going to be pernickety, his £100K or whatever it was, works out at about 2/- for every British Empire fatality, give or take and probably rather less than a 1/- if one includes those seriously wounded and permanently disabled. The army, in many ways, had reason to gripe, as the navy got prize money well into the nineteenth century, which could be very lucrative indeed (eg Sir Edward Pellew). Now if we want to take pot shots, how about the so-called 'war profiteers' as a target? I think that there is rather more room for debate there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hazelclark Posted 25 May , 2014 Share Posted 25 May , 2014 Smacks of money for the "boys"........the establishment looking after its own....... Tom Tom, Those were very different times with very different perspectives and social values. Haig did at least try to do his bit afterwards to help the veterans albeit by 21 st Century standards that was not a lot. This whole discussion has a very personal connotation for me. I was largely brought up by my Grandmother except when I was away at school, and remained close to her for the rest of her life. My mother has always tried to prevent me researching my grandfather, and finally a couple of years ago, after refusing to talk about him, she said "he was a monster". My grandparents had separated in the 20s and no one ever spoke about my grandfather until recently my cousin and i started the "ancestry" thing. Because I had lived with my grandmother I knew that later in life, she said she regretted the split. My mother pooh poohed this. On a recent trip to Scotland, I spent some time going through documents in my Granny's attic. It turned out to be a "Pandora's Box" for a number of reasons, most of which have no bearing on this part of the story. I found their separation papers, and read that the reason for separation was "cruelty". That upset me for starters. Subsequent to my return to Canada, I discovered the "Find my Past", newspaper archive, and armed with dates of the separation, I found an article describing in some detail what my grandfather's behaviour was like. It totally turned my stomach. Anyway, the long and the short of it was, that my grandfather, a career soldier, after being wounded early in the war on return from India, spent until about May 1917, training recruits at the Bn. Depot. He then went back to France, won the MM in July, and then lost his right arm at 3rd Ypres. He ended up with a wife and three children and a pension of 2 pounds something a week to live on. What happened after that I find hard to even talk about. Suffice it to say that he took to drink and became a different person. He was NOT nice. My granny was obliged to take her three surviving children and leave. Anyway, I guess what i am trying to say is that we cannot change the past. Geraint and Tom, I don't blame anyone for the problems in my family, although what I have recently discovered has upset me deeply. My granny had also lost her youngest brother, who was killed in August 1918 after only six weeks in France. Society changed quite dramatically with the war and many well to do people became paupers as a result of deaths and taxes and wounds etc. It wasn't just the poorer members of society. These deep seated feelings about the ill treatment of the soldiers during and after the war, which are still held by many of my generation, cannot be rectified, and only serve to deepen the feelings of those who did suffer. My generation actually knew those people. Hazel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 25 May , 2014 Share Posted 25 May , 2014 Extracted Hansard. 4. The main war gratuity for soldiers 'other ranks' was as follows: (a)Personnel eligible.—Soldiers with war service overseas, or with more than 6 months' service at home. (b) Amount.—(i) A minimum payment varying with rank from £5 for a private, up to £15 for a warrant officer class I (approximately equivalent to 67 days' pay). (ii) additional payments, if the soldier had more than 12 months' service, of 10s. 0d. or 5s. 0d. for each month or part of a month's war service beyond the first 12 months according to whether he had served overseas or not. The maximum number of these monthly additions was 48, equivalent to a gratuity of 5 years' war service. (iii) lower rates were prescribed for boys (£2 minimum and additional payments at the rate of 2s. 6d. unless the boy served overseas, when the full 10s. 0d. was given). (c) Service reckonable—war service between 4th August, 1914, and 3rd August, 1919; rank for the purposes of the minimum payment was the substantive, temporary, or (paid) acting rank held at termination of service (or on 11th November, 1918, if higher). (d) The ordinary discharge gratuity under the Pay Warrant of £1 for each year or part of a year was merged in the war gratuity except for regular soldiers who were eligible for both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hazelclark Posted 25 May , 2014 Share Posted 25 May , 2014 Don't know what the gratuity for my grandfather was worth. I just checked the separation documents again, and he was listed as an army sergeant who had lost his right arm and his pension for the five of them was 2 pounds six shillings and ninepence. Hazel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geraint Posted 25 May , 2014 Share Posted 25 May , 2014 Very very well put Hazel. Eight doors down from my grandmother and great aunt lived another great aunt (father's side), and her husband. She, at the age of 18 served in France as a nurse and he was an MiD Lewis Gunner serving with the SWBs. They frightened the life out of me. They lived and breathed British Legion and chapel. Three houses up lived another great aunt and her husband who served with RWF 14th and joined the Black and Tans and in my memory during the 60s stank of beer, was obsessed by Robert Mitchum, and died breaking his neck falling downstairs whilst trying to light a fag. He served as a prison camp guard during WWII and took pot shots at Italian prisoners during the nights. Another great uncle serving in Gallipoli with 6th RWF became the town sextant and kept vertebrates of German WWII aviators shot down over Pwllheli in the cemetery wall and delighted in showing us kids during the late 60s "those bloody ba*tard Germans!" Mad? Of course they were - each and every one of them! All living with whichever trauma had affected them during the war. I knew them - they're my family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
towisuk Posted 25 May , 2014 Author Share Posted 25 May , 2014 Many thanks for clarification of what Soldiers received at the conclusion of the war, and Hazels posting shows that it may have been the war that impacted of her family with behaviour that may have stemmed from injuries or experience in the battlefields. Many thanks for all postings, it gives me an insight into what many members think of Haig and whether it was right to give what amounted to taxpayers money to a man that was only doing his job. As often pointed out in many replies things were different then, and I suppose that could be down to the fact that the populace were not as informed as we are today about what was happening around them. But today we do have the luxury of hindsight and have a right to probe and ask questions...because if we don't learn from history it will only repeat itself.. regards Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigelcave Posted 25 May , 2014 Share Posted 25 May , 2014 By and large I think that they were informed - but how they reacted was very different, for a whole raft of socio-economic reasons. The army generally was not well paid - whether you be a 'common' soldier or an officer in those far off days: officers much better paid, but then expected to operate, quite often, at a level above their salaries/pay rates - quite oten substantially more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 25 May , 2014 Share Posted 25 May , 2014 because if we don't learn from history it will only repeat itself.. I beg to differ. There is absolutely no way in which a European nation could mobilise its population to fight another major European war. Just look at the aversion to casualties among politicians, never mind informed citizens. A very highly respected ranking army officer and published historian told me 30 years ago that the received wisdom was "no way!" Limited war is now for professionals, those accidentally caught up in it, and remote devices. And GOOD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geraint Posted 25 May , 2014 Share Posted 25 May , 2014 Absolutely Tom. A soldier today is rightly protected and a service death is given every inquest possible. Post mortems are conducted, and coroners inquests made and all deaths are publicly justified. That didn't happen in 1914-8. Lives were callously thrown away. And that wasn't "the past being a foreign country". Those were my grandparents, and uncles and aunts. People I knew - not the backdrop to an academic argument. Flesh and blood - callously disregarded. Today's serving soldiers wouldn't have given the time of day to the conditions that the Great War Tommy faced. He'd have walked off voicing his disgust on Twitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 25 May , 2014 Share Posted 25 May , 2014 Geraint they are both the backdrop to an academic discussion and the people we knew. I had one uncle minus a leg, a grandfather with a duodenal ulcer for life [aged 96], a definitely odd ex-regular RE uncle, and my wife lost a grandfather. If there was callousness, surely the callous were the politicians, not the serving soldiers [of all ranks]? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hazelclark Posted 25 May , 2014 Share Posted 25 May , 2014 Now if we want to take pot shots, how about the so-called 'war profiteers' as a target? I think that there is rather more room for debate there. I am with you on that one, and it is still happening. I am quite sure everyone has heard of Halliburton to mention but one. Although, I guess companies like Dupont and Bethlehem Steel might make a more appropriate subject for this debate. There were also lots on the German side of course. Hazel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanA Posted 25 May , 2014 Share Posted 25 May , 2014 Another great uncle serving in Gallipoli with 6th RWF became the town sextant That would be before satnavs were invented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khaki Posted 26 May , 2014 Share Posted 26 May , 2014 I think I would prefer to be a chronometer for a time, rather than a sextant, or maybe a clinometer for a different angle on things khaki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 26 May , 2014 Share Posted 26 May , 2014 Put me down for an astrolabe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth505 Posted 26 May , 2014 Share Posted 26 May , 2014 The wife has done some research: Blenheim cost 212,000+ pounds in early 17th century money, £4,112,000,000 in current valuations. This was the first big lesson in open ended gestures to the heros! Nelson bought an £8,000 estate in the early 19th century, £680,000 now, it has already been mentioned the difficulty comparing the Navy since they could get prize money. Wellington is proving difficult to quantify 38M to 2B!!! - Apsley House & Waterloo Palace (to rival Blenheim!) - A dukedom figured in somewhere, The Kingdom of the Two Sicilies? Also he was made Prince of Waterloo: In addition to this title, the Dutch king also granted Wellington 2,600 acres (10.5 km²) of land and a yearly donation of 20,000 guilders. To this day the Dukes of Wellington retain the title Prince of Waterloo, and enjoy an annual income of around £100,000 from the longstanding tenants occupying the land. The land held by the Prince of Waterloo has recently (2001) come under pressure from retired Belgian senator Jean-Emile Humblet. In 1817, the government in what is now Belgium struck a deal to pay the duke £1,600 a year in return for the proceeds of sales of timber which the duke wanted to clear from the forested land. Until 1988, successive dukes enjoyed this annual payment, but the present Prince of Waterloo,Valerian Wellesley, 8th Duke of Wellington, agreed to forgo the payment in exchange for outright ownership of 60 acres (240,000 m²) of the 2,600 acres (10.5 km²) to which he has rights. But some Belgian taxpayers, lead by Humblet, say the deal does not reflect the value of the land - which they say is part of Belgium's national territory - use the debate to draw attention to the wider issues of the original agreement, contending that Belgium was effectively coerced into accepting the terms of the original agreement because it could not afford to offend Britain. Haig's payout £250,000 if that's what it was is about £8,000,000 today. This is still thought of as a s**teload of money but I doubt he had staff and expenses provided to him. Many CEO's, which is what Haig was in a way, make that in a year or a quarter year. Some even less. I've been seeing news about the first Hip Hop Billionaire who seemingly had a good idea about headphones. I guess if I could choose I'd be a descendant, all the loot none of the heavy lifting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth505 Posted 26 May , 2014 Share Posted 26 May , 2014 A couple literary figures weigh in: “You will not think I have made a bad exchange when we reach Trafalgar House — which by the bye, I almost wish I had not named Trafalgar — for Waterloo is more the thing now.” This is attributed to a Mr. Parker in Jane Austen's unfinished 'final' work. There may be an earldom for one hero. A thousand silver medals for a thousand heros. But what can anyone do for a million heros? -This from John Galsworthy deep in the Forsyte Saga for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Sheldon Posted 27 May , 2014 Share Posted 27 May , 2014 Oh and do not forget that the Waterloo medals were not struck and awarded until long years after the battle so a great many veterans, possibly the majority missed out on one. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeMeech Posted 27 May , 2014 Share Posted 27 May , 2014 Haig's payout £250,000 if that's what it was is about £8,000,000 today. This is still thought of as a s**teload of money but I doubt he had staff and expenses provided to him. Many CEO's, which is what Haig was in a way, make that in a year or a quarter year. Some even less. I've been seeing news about the first Hip Hop Billionaire who seemingly had a good idea about headphones. I guess if I could choose I'd be a descendant, all the loot none of the heavy lifting Hi £8,000,000, A fair few Premier League footballers can get more than that in a year! They of course have important responsibilities; turning up for a match, having the right hair style etc. compared with Haig's!? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil andrade Posted 27 May , 2014 Share Posted 27 May , 2014 Hi £8,000,000, A fair few Premier League footballers can get more than that in a year! They of course have important resposibilities; turning up for a match, having the right hair style etc. compared with Haig's!? Mike Haig's hair style was dreadful. Phil (PJA) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
towisuk Posted 27 May , 2014 Author Share Posted 27 May , 2014 Hi £8,000,000, A fair few Premier League footballers can get more than that in a year! They of course have important resposibilities; turning up for a match, having the right hair style etc. compared with Haig's!? Mike Ah! but the other people in the team are probably on comparable rewards...... Haigs team in the trenches were on nothing like what their "manager" earned...... As for Haigs "good works" after the war, I'm sure the any of the soldiers would have appreciated being given "rewards" so that they had the chance to do "good works" post hostilities instead of having to work for meagre wages to keep families .....if they could find, and were were able to work..!! Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Sheldon Posted 27 May , 2014 Share Posted 27 May , 2014 Tom I expect that you can draw some satisfaction from the fact that those who share your views have long since prevailed. The post WW1 payments were the last time such grants were made. Both Montgomery and Alanbrooke - neither of them well-heeled - were highly peeved when they were awarded nothing but titles after 1945, but they had to suck it up. At least they did not, as far as I know, have three months' entertainment allowance clawed back from their pay, as happened to Admiral Woodward after the Falklands War, on the grounds that if he was conducting a war, he could not have been entertaining anybody. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
towisuk Posted 27 May , 2014 Author Share Posted 27 May , 2014 (edited) Many thanks for that Jack, I wasn't aware that Woodward had money clawed back under those circumstances, at least it shows that notice was being taken about how to spend taxpayers money. It may not have happened if great strides had not been made in the dissemination of information through the advances made communication. Can you imagine the public's reaction today if the directors of wars were rewarded when fathers and sons were being shipped back in coffins.... I think we have a lot to be thankful for today in that we are better informed than our predecessors...... We can only be thankful that we live in more enlightened times...... regards Tom Edited 27 May , 2014 by Keith Roberts to avoid more modern political comment that would ahve followed 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