Scottish casualties myth meme

[Skipman]

A friend of a friend has posted this meme on Facebook. I think it's nationalist nonsense and would like to answer it with some accurate information. Any facts, links and information that can help correct this would bemost  welcome.

 

Cheers Mike

[kenf48]

Discussed at length on this thread  My g-uncle served and died with A & SH he never set foot in the place but is still remembered on the SNWM

Ken

[Skipman]

Thanks Ken. I thought there was one but couldn't find it. "Scottistics" it is.

 

Cheers Mike

[Gardenerbill]

The kilts were khaki not tartan.

[Muerrisch]

Once again Guest has done the very hard yards.

 

Rejoice!

[Skipman]

8 minutes ago, Gardenerbill said:

The kilts were khaki not tartan.

 

I thought they wore tartan kilts with a khaki apron?

 

Mike

[Steven Broomfield]

10 minutes ago, Gardenerbill said:

The kilts were khaki not tartan.

 

No. The kilts were tartan; the kilt covers were khaki (pedantry alert)

[Ron Clifton]

23 minutes ago, Steven Broomfield said:

kilt covers were khaki (pedantry alert)

"Aprons, kilt" according to the Clothing Regulations (petard-hoisting alert).

 

Ron

[Patrick Watt]

Hi everyone

 

I have recently had an article published in the Journal of Scottish Historical Studies which examines the 'disproportionate casualties' mythology in detail.  It is free to download at https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/pdfplus/10.3366/jshs.2019.0261 

 

All the best

 

Patrick

[phil andrade]

Disproportionately higher death rate, certainly, but only marginally so.

 

Some people are just that bit more pugnacious than others, aren’t they ?

 

Phil

[Steven Broomfield]

4 hours ago, Patrick Watt said:

Hi everyone

 

I have recently had an article published in the Journal of Scottish Historical Studies which examines the 'disproportionate casualties' mythology in detail.  It is free to download at https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/pdfplus/10.3366/jshs.2019.0261 

 

All the best

 

Patrick

 

Patrick - I've only scanned through this so far, but it looks very interesting. I'm interested, though: was there a reason for not using (or at least, not referencing, so far as I can see) all the staistics assembled by 'Guest' in his long thread on the subject on this Forum?

[phil andrade]

If some of the estimates in that article are to be believed, it was not the Scottish soldiers who died at an excessive rate, but the sailors.

 

I wonder if the mercantile marine contained disproportionate numbers of Scotsmen : perhaps they produced large contingents of fishermen who were ready, willing and able for maritime service.

 

Phil

[Pat Atkins]

"Big men..." - now, there's a topic for consideration. As for the distinctively-clad bit, well, my dad's uncle was killed with 1st Scots Guards in January 1915 in a kilt. Lambeth's loss...

 

As others have said, Guest has pretty definitively covered this interesting subject (though I haven't read Patrick's work yet, I should say).

 

Pat

[Muerrisch]

Patrick.

A mighty undertaking.

Well done.

But ........

I fear you might not understand the nature, composition or conditions of service of the Army Reserve.

Its very complications add a further layer of uncertainty to any calculations.

I urge you to read our thread alluded to.

[Ron Abbott]

2 hours ago, Pat Atkins said:

"Big men..." - now, there's a topic for consideration. As for the distinctively-clad bit, well, my dad's uncle was killed with 1st Scots Guards in January 1915 in a kilt. Lambeth's loss...

 

As others have said, Guest has pretty definitively covered this interesting subject (though I haven't read Patrick's work yet, I should say).

 

Pat

 

 

Out of interest, can you kindly advise who he was? 

 

I don't have a record of any Piper in the Scots Guards being killed in January 1915. 

 

[Pat Atkins]

6 hours ago, Ron Abbott said:

 

 

Out of interest, can you kindly advise who he was? 

 

I don't have a record of any Piper in the Scots Guards being killed in January 1915. 

 

Actually, I have no idea about the kilt bit, not very up on Scots Guards generally Ron - apologies, really don't want to tread on any toes in ignorance. It was over-enthusiasm on my part, as I wanted to make the point that I'm uncomfortable with the deaths of men used, even a century later, to push a current political point like this (whether I agree or disagree with it is immaterial).

 

He was 9220 Pte Samuel William Atkins, 1st Bn Scots Guards, killed at Cuinchy on 25th January 1915. I have no idea how he ended up in the regiment, he was from Lambeth and enlisted in the late August/early September 1914; he was in France at the end of November, so I can only assume he was rushed through training as a replacement for their heavy casualties.

 

Cheers, Pat

[Muerrisch]

........ wearing trousers!

[Pat Atkins]

As I now realise, to my embarrassment!

 

 

[Muerrisch]

Further to my: 

 

I fear you might not understand the nature, composition or conditions of service of the Army Reserve.

Its very complications add a further layer of uncertainty to any calculations.

I urge you to read our thread alluded to.

 

I have now received permission to offer the following, by an ex-member who retains an interest.

 

Patrick Watt's article makes some unfortunate errors based on a misunderstanding of the composition of the Army Reserve. He takes a simple average of Scots-born men who enlisted in 1904-1913* and assumes this calculated figure (7.88%) to be representative of the (Scots-born) Army Reservists in 1914. This is misleading.

• First  24% of the Army Reserve were Section D men who by definition had served at at least 12 years with the Colours and the Reserve. In the Line Infantry the proportion in Sep 1913 (the last available data) was 29%. These men joined the Regular Army between 1899 and 1902, a period when Scottish recruiting was proportionally higher than in subsequent years. Watt's numbers underestimate the proportion of Army Reservists who were Scots-born. He estimates that Scots-born represented 7.88% of the Army Reserve. In the Line Infantry the reported figure (Ref WO 114) was actually 13.9%. Almost twice.
• Secondly, the proportion of Section D Army Reservists was significantly higher (on average) in Scottish regiments than in English, Welsh or Irish regiments. Some 34.2% of Scottish Infantry Regiments' Army Reservists were Section D. This compared to English and Welsh (28.5%) and Irish (28.6%). This would again under-estimate the numbers of Scots-born. Structurally speaking, Scottish line infantry Army Reservists were older and in higher proportions than the other nations. (Ref WO 114). Incidentally the official returns show Scottish line infantry to have 8% more Army Reservists per paired battalion than the English,Welsh and Irish Regiments. 
• Thirdly, the errors are compounded by assuming that the proportion of Scots-born men in the Special Reserve is the same as the (wrongly assumed) proportion in the Army Reserve. This is not the case as the Special Reserve recruited locally and the Army recruited nationally. As Patrick highlights, there were significant proportions on non-Scots born in Scottish regular infantry regiments and by extension these would be reflected in the Army Reserve. The Special Reservists were recruited from 'local' men, rather like the TF. While these adjustments are relatively small, it does highlight the difficulty in establishing the number of Scotsmen (defined as Scots-born) serving in the pre-War Army.
• Fourthly, there is no need to estimate the number of Scots-born Special Reservists as these are shown on page 118 of the GAR 1913 at 11.12%, a number somewhat higher than the wrongly estimated 7.88%. ..... 1.42 times higher in fact. This is odd as the same document is referenced elsewhere in the article.  
• Lastly*, men enlisting after 1906 on "Seven & Five" would still be in the regulars, so the choice of 1904-1913 as the benchmark is perplexing.

The necessary adjustments would further increase the number of Scots-born serving pre-War and implicitly reduce the % of population who served and died during the Great War

 

It is difficult to see what new information Patrick Watt's article introduces. The mythology of alleged higher Scottish fatalities has been debunked many years ago. The real point is that politicians, some 'academics' and journalists choose to ignore the facts. The critical point is that Niall Ferguson's use of Winter's statistics in The Pity of War made an unacknowledged amendment which was not in Winter's original. The unsuspecting reader would be forgiven for thinking the error was Winter's and nor Ferguson's (and others'). Patrick Watt's articles states:

 

".....There is, however, one major difference between Winter’s and Ferguson’s figures: the inclusion of a separate figure for Scotland’s war dead alongside one for the United Kingdom as a whole, which is not included in Winter’s work. ....’.

 

This very point was made on this Forum more than seven years before Patrick's article. A remarkable coincidence.  

 

https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/177607-scottish-losses/page/2/ post #45

 

Similarly, Patrick's arguments that pre-war regular Scottish Battalions were not all Scots born has been debunked on this forum two years ago, using the same 1911 Census data. Another remarkable coincidence, 

 

https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/244538-1911-census-demographics-regular-battalions/page/4/

 

 

I HAVE VOLUNTARILY DELETED THE LAST PARAGRAPH.

 

I HOPE TO PROVOKE SENSIBLE FACT-BASED DEBATE.

 

 

Edited 1 November , 2019 by Muerrisch

[robbie56]

Two explanations can be offered for the high amount (number) of Scottish deaths.

———-

As far as the arithmetic is concerned a relatively disproportionate Scottish enlistment value does not relate to a high percent value for those killed. If all members of the British military were exposed to the same risks, irrespective of “nationality”, the number of those killed is calculated on the base number of those enlisted. If that base number is higher for one nationality than another the percentage would remain more or less the same assuming the same risks.

———-

The last paragraph suggests strengths but may also indicate underlying weaknesses. In other words the balance is zero and therefore not valid as an explanation as stated.

———-

 

 

[Ron Abbott]

Irrespective or the total genuine percentage, the results were devastating to entire communities, perhaps in an even greater manner than those joining 'pals battalions' from elsewhere in the British Isles.  This I would suggest partly because of the very small population size especially in the highlands and islands and also because of previous devastating events such as the highland clearances.  It has been suggested that the effects of WW1 still linger on to this day in the Hebrides and I wouldn't doubt it. 

 

Purely as an example, there must have been been a considerable number of villages in these areas in 1914 when the 1st Battalion, Queen's Own  Cameron Highlanders suffered such huge losses.....,.and that was just one battalion.

 

 

 

 

Edited 1 November , 2019 by Ron Abbott
Moderator action

[Muerrisch]

10 hours ago, robbie56 said:

Two explanations can be offered for the high amount (number) of Scottish deaths.

———-

As far as the arithmetic is concerned a relatively disproportionate Scottish enlistment value does not relate to a high percent value for those killed. If all members of the British military were exposed to the same risks, irrespective of “nationality”, the number of those killed is calculated on the base number of those enlisted. If that base number is higher for one nationality than another the percentage would remain more or less the same assuming the same risks.

———-

The last paragraph suggests strengths but may also indicate underlying weaknesses. In other words the balance is zero and therefore not valid as an explanation as stated.

———-

 

 

 

Frankly I do not understand you.

 

Your "the number of those killed is calculated on the base number of those enlisted" is baffling. The number of those killed is the number of those killed.

 

Quoi qu'on fasse, on perd beaucoup de monde" ("Whatever you do, you lose a lot of men" General Mangin.

 

[kenf48]

A reminder political posts on the forum will be deleted without notice.

 

Forum Rules

Discussions and posts on modern-day conflicts, politics or religion are prohibited throughout the forum.

 

Let's keep it on topic please.

 

Ken

 

 

[Muerrisch]

15 hours ago, kenf48 said:

A reminder political posts on the forum will be deleted without notice.

 

Forum Rules

Discussions and posts on modern-day conflicts, politics or religion are prohibited throughout the forum.

 

Let's keep it on topic please.

 

Ken

 

 

 

A request please.

Which post was it that excited attention? ............... I have had a good look and apart from a passing blow at "politicians" [who, I know, existed in the Great War] I really cannot see anything near the mark.

[DavidOwen]

1 minute ago, Muerrisch said:

 

A request please.

Which post was it that excited attention? ............... I have had a good look and apart from a passing blow at "politicians" [who, I know, existed in the Great War] I really cannot see anything near the mark.

 

The text in question was removed.