Mud, Blood and Poppycock

[Mark Hone]

There was a very positive review of this book by Andrew Roberts in one of the papers over the weekend. However, like a lot of reviews these days it ignored the actual book for much of its length and was more of an explanation and endorsement of the 'revisionist' interpretation by the reviewer.

[Muerrisch]

Two chapters to go, and I may never finish it. Ungripped am I. And yet, there are some interesting bits, just no structure.

[Ken Lees]

I've just finished this book and I found that the author's sneering attitude and obvious bias detracted from the interesting parts of the book, which for me were mainly the 'soldier's eye view' of weapons and tactics.

I could not help thinking that a more balanced, structured argument would have been more effective in getting across his views.

And the cover claim was totally misleading. It didn't overturn everything I thought I knew about Britain and the First World War!

Having said all that, I'm glad that I read it. It all adds to the interest for me and I'm sure I'll read something else that will redress the balance.

Ken

+++ Researching the 9th Bn., King's Liverpool Regiment and the men of Ormskirk & District, Lancashire, who served in the Great War +++

[Alan Lines]

This has to be one of the worst books I have ever read. In a word POPPYCOCK!!!

[Muerrisch]

By nature I tend to being revisionist. But revisionism needs, above all, to be based on hard, irrefutable, in-your-face facts, otherwise it is mere whingeing. In subject areas where I have expertise [pathetically few, narrow, but DEEP] I found many errors, enough to discredit this rag-bag of a book in my eyes. However, a 20 page precis of his original ideas and insights might be worthwhile. Corrected, of course, by the Pals.

[paul guthrie]

Strange he missed, his Sepoys in the Trenches is excellent and well researched.

[ianw]

Alan/LB1418

Couldn't agree more with your analysis. To get to the nuggets you have to wade through a lot of dross. A bad book , plain and simple.

[armourersergeant]

I have picked this book up about five times in the last week and for some reason i dont fancy it. I realise this seems strange but some times i know when i am going to like a book and when i am going to find it a hard slog.

Still picking it up , still putting it back down again, looks like i always will be.

Arm.

[AndyHollinger]

I think one easily misses the point on his book. From my reading it is a military history polemic ... not history, per se, but more like informed opinion and presented in an argumentative style.

It is very, very needed. The Lions led by Donkeys is a concept accepted as true by all levels of teachers and historians. As an orthodoxy, only specialists, will try to assert that "in particular" there are exceptions, but the basic paradigm is accepted. Hopefully, Corrigan's book will begin to break the hold the existing paradigm holds on our minds and beliefs and, much like Kepler or Copurnicus in breaking Aristoltelian Physics, begin to lead us to a new understanding of the British Army's experience in WWI.

My view is that it is not history, but a historical essay to provide the other side of the argument. There has to be another side of the argument. One has only to walk through Ypers and wonder the hows and whys and realize the Lions led by Donkeys stuff just doesn't work, not for that many men, for that long.

However, if your mind is not open to see another side, it is merely words. We have a great deal invested in seeing WWI as the Meinen Gate or Tyne Cot ... and this book attempts to get us to see around it.

But I could be wrong ...

[Chris_Baker]

The Lions led by Donkeys is a concept accepted as true by all levels of teachers and historians.

It is deeply ingrained, you are right there, but there is a growing body of counter-opinion being formed by the revisionist school of historians (among which you could count John Terraine, Corelli Barnett, Peter Simpkins, John Bourne, John Lee, and many others). This is a trend that has been growing certainly from the early 1990s and - although there were far fewer voices - from the 1960s and 1970s. This it seems to me is beginning to have an effect not only amongst academic historians but even the media and enlightened teachers.

[AndyHollinger]

Chris ...

Yes, there is a growing amount and someday we'll get a more balanced view - but it will take time and more works like Mud, Blood & Poppycock to change the view of the "Senseless War" and the "Lions led by Donkeys"

But, I wonder if the school trips by British students are helping in this or hindering it? I can tell you my trips to the American Civil War battlefields helped me understand the war ... but they are not like Ypers - where, everywhere you look are the fields of white stones ... I still remember walking around Tyne Cot with tears running down my face much the same as walking Pickett's Charge or visiting the VN memorial ... It will take a lot of scholarship to dislodge those images and those propagated by TV to get people to see a balanced view.

[Alan Lines]

Sorry Andy can't agree.

This book is not just another of the many books along the revisionist theme that have been churned out recently, it could end up being the bible for revisionists.

Very little new stuff in there but the authour takes the theme to a new level in my opinion by belittling the efforts of the average Tommy whilst of course (Hughes-Wilson style) paying the odd mandatory compliment to the bravery and spirit etc of the men. Even as a confirmed non-revisionist I accept that some of the authours Chris mentions above make some very good points but this man is on too much of a crusade to be taken seriously.

The bias is so strong that by the end of it I found myself believing even more in the "Donkeys" arguement.

[AndyHollinger]

Okay, I have more or less finished the book. It reminds me of my son's debating ... so ardent, so intense ... it is a polemic not a history. It reminds me much of my little find in an used book store Bolsheviki and World Peace by Leon Trotzky (that's the way its spelled in the book) Boni and Liveright, NY 1918 with an introduction by Lincoln Steffens ... facts and an argument.

It is not a book of understanding but one of argument. For me, it is valuable because it argues against the "Lions led by Donkeys" theme so prevelent in today's popular understanding AND because it does combat the "Useless Slaughter" concept of WWI tactics and operations. It reads as do the Official US Gov't arguments about the current war ... it is trying, sometimes much too hard, to prove a point.

The part that hurts - yes, really hurts - is when he defends the losses on the Somme as "acceptable." Only a historian, looking from the safe distance of time and space can say that ... But, that is an emotional reaction to what "mistakes" and "wrong moves" mean on the battlefield. At least Lee, who watched the slaughter of the 3rd day's charge was overcome by his "mistake" and took responsibility for it. I believe it changed his method of command and how he took risks from then on ... in today's lingo, he "felt the pain." No where in the book does it show that the British command, felt the pain.

Perhaps its a bit like looking at National or World politics - one is either a "realist" therefore letting one's emotions and principles be sidetracked to view the "ends" or being caught up in the activities and details - the "liberal, emotional" views or reactions or questions about "what we're doing" ...

Westmorland still thinks he was "right" about Viet Nam ... World War II was the "Good War" ... so everyone except Studs Turkel finds that, in general things went okay ... Saddam has been captured, so it's all okay in the end ... But part of me can't help but think of what it must have been like for those Tommys led by men like me (never destined for high position) to get up in the morning and go forward ... whether it be across a gentle incline at Ypres (oops, excuse me - a ridge) or across a few fields in Pennsylvania. Mud, Blood and Poppycock makes it all seem to be "okay" and "for the best" and perhaps it is about compitant men, trying the best they could and finally prevailing ... Yes, the Somme did prove "successful" because 1918 was successful and Verdun held, and they learned to do better afterwards (a while afterwards, but they did do better) but one can not help saying "at what price?" or, perhaps, should have the second day never happened.

[Graham-McAdam]

I resent the £10 I spent on it. If anyone wants it for a fiver , please get in contact !

God almighty - I've just ordered it from Smiths for £18! (Christmas Token). Has to be worth a look, he's such a super speaker and real hard man - I heard him once at Cambrai wandering into the night about Malplaquet and Gas in WW1 - first time I'd heard an army pro, and as my main war feelings came from Owen and his like I was a bit shocked. That was at least 4 years ago and I'm now a born again Haigist, so Corrigan did his job well.

[bmac]

Thankfully I have borrowed this book from the library as, at first glance, I would certainly be upset at having paid the list price of £18.99 for it. To date, I have read the introduction and the section on the 1st July 1916.

The introduction alone is sufficient to make one question whether Corrigan's enthusiasm for revionism has overtaken his desire to explain the history of the WW1 in a remotely sensible way. His overwhelming desire to 'dish the myths' takes him into some strange and unsustainable places. To say that his writing is full of assertions, assumptions and inaccuracies when one has only read the introduction does not bode well for the rest of the book.

Take page 10 of the intro: "...there were large swathes of the (British) nation from where no one was killed." I am afraid this is news to me. Can anyone tell me where I might find such a 'large swathe'. Even a 'small swathe' would do. He says this to 'de-mystify' WW1's casualties. OK, so 'only', on average, one household (household, not 'family' as Corrigan asserts) in 14 may have lost a member (in the road in which I live that would have meant 8-9 bereaved households!) but two things:

1. Clearly not every household would have had a male of service age, i.e. the concentration of fatalities in households that could have been affected was a good deal higher than 1 in 14; and

2. Families were not just affected by death. Many husbands and sons came back crippled physically and/or mentally and the family scars this caused were far more numerous even if not as deep.

On page 13 he goes on to cite several writers as being responsible for the change in attitudes towards WW1 which he states occurred in the 1930s. He says:

"The publication of ... Remarque's fictional All Quiet on the Western Front in 1929 stimulated a spate of anti-war memoirs and novels that had begun a few years before. Poets and writers like Siegfried Sassoon, Robert Graves, Wilfred Owen, Rupert Brooke, Edmund Blunden, C E Montague and Frederick Manning wrote convincingly that war had been futile.... Most of them were not new to having their thoughts in print: the majority had already been published before the war".

What's wrong with this? Well, for a start, Brooke and Owen would have been hard pressed to write much after the war as they died in 1915 and 1918 respectively. Secondly, Graves, Sassoon and Manning first published their war poetry whilst the war was still taking place - in 1916, 1918 and 1917 respectively. Montague's book 'Disenchantment' wa published in 1922, well before Corrigan suggests the majority of anti-war writers started their work. Indeed, all of the major war books of the writer's listed, except Sassoon's, were in print before or at the same time as Remarque's so could hardly have been influenced by it as Corrigan hints at. Lastly, I can find little or no evidence of them having 'already been published before the war', i.e. there is no evidence that these writers were known 'peaceniks' whose views were to be expected and were therefore unreliable or just plain wrong.

Corrigan is also prone to a bit of character assassination when it suits him. Describing All Quiet on the Western Front as 'fictional' and then saying it was burned by the Nazis and banned by the French tries to give the impression that there was something dubious about the book. Sassoon is described as being '"in a mental hospital" when he wrote his piece in The Times in 1917. Craiglockhart Hospital was, in fact, a war hospital for the treatment of shell shocked officers. But, again, Corrigan tries to undermine someone whose views and influence he dislikes not through argument and facts but by sly personal attacks (see also his comments on Liddell Hart).

And then there are comments like "What made the British army attack along the Somme and keep attacking (my emphasis) was dictated by what was happening at Verdun" (page 15). Well, Verdun may have provided the initial justification for a relieving offensive but it is stretching credulity to accept that prolonging the battle into November was in any way related to Verdun. The main crisis in that battle was over by 11th July 1916 and, thereafter, whilst it remained generally quiet, some French counter-attacks regained much of the land lost.

Lastly, on page 19, he states "(The British Army)... was the only army capable of taking the offensive in 1918." Well, tell that to the German Army in March 1918. And, if he means, 'the only Allied army' well he should be more precise.

I'm afraid such stuff undermines any credibility Corrigan attempts to build up by trumpeting his military background and I will struggle to read the rest.

Can ayone tell me whether Corrigan saw action during his 35 years in the Army? I somehow hope he did otherwise his comments about Liddell Hart having been 'found wanting in physical courage' after being wounded, shell-shocked and gassed might strike others as an outstanding and objectionable example of hypocritical cant.

Truly poppycock.

[Fred van Woerkom]

Thank you Bmac for this most interesting piece of 'close reading'. Could you give your view of the whole book when you have finished it?

Regards,

Fred

[AndyHollinger]

Obsessive actions in the defense of virtue is no sin - is the only justification I can think of to defend Corrigan. If one distances oneself from the details and the statitistical assertions, he makes a good point to people who are not experts - which, I believe, is the intended audience. Remember he's fighting In Flanders Fields, Goodbye to All That and All Quiet ... all of which have been read by if not a majority, a large minority of the literate public.

In my review above, I, too, grew tired of his over-zealous use of stuff to defend his premise ... but, I believe it is a polemic, not a history. Face it, it wasn't written for us, or really, any soldier who'd walked the fields ... he writing for the masses who see the fields of crosses for this "forgotten" war and "KNOW" it must have been the big-whigs who failed.

In another string, there is talk about Tolkein finding all his friends dead ... no statitistics can make up for the "lost generation" myth (in my book) nor can they overcome Tyne Cot.

Again, I counsel, as I do my students, to look at the purpose and audience when judging any work ... there are historians who make American Black Slavery seem almost desirable ... and historians who see Lee as foolhardy and bathed in needless blood ... all historians do is give us a view ... that when added to the other views we get, give us some level of picture to the past ... these are not photographs, but impressionistic paintings ...

[bmac]

I am sorry, I don't agree. If this is designed to appeal to people who know little about the conduct of the war then there is a greater responsibility on the part of a 'historian' to be accurate. To gratuitously distort facts in order to support a point renders Corrigan just as guilty of misinformation as the people he accuses in his book.

You cannot justifiably right a perceived historical wrong by twisting the facts and maligning people. All that Corrigan achieves by this is to make himself a laughing stock amongst those who know something about the war and to open himself up to accusations that he is prepared to twist anything and slander anyone in order to support his point of view.

That is not history, that is propaganda.

[Muerrisch]

Again, I counsel, as I do my students, to look at the purpose and audience when judging any work ... there are historians who make American Black Slavery seem almost desirable ... and historians who see Lee as foolhardy and bathed in needless blood ... all historians do is give us a view ...

When I write history [books or articles] I do not have a readership in mind and I don't have a mission ...... I try to tell it like it is and let the facts speak for themselves.

Facile conclusions I try to leave to others, my backside is deeply grooved from sitting on the fence.

[AndyHollinger]

That is not history, that is propaganda.

Not to belabor the point, but all history is propaganda ... just some has more evidence and uses certain types of evidence than others ... MB&P is a polemic - meaning it's an argument.

Van Ranke gave us the modern historical method based on a way of looking at things through documents and the belief that few people can lie in the future ... meaning that most people will endeavor to document the truth ... Hegel gave us the view that History is always seen through the prevailing economic-historical epoch which is put forth as justification of the prevailing thesis and also said the antithesis was writing history as fast as it could - but different - at the same time. Sassoon and Graves give us history disquised as fiction ... All history is, to a certain extent fiction or at least fictional, because it is one view of ideas or conceptions of what went on and why ... etc.

All of this is simply talking about the production of history ... now when we get to the selling of an idea, or a point of view ... well, selling always takes things down a different path.

A couple of ideas ... Is one History Channel "thing" done on Ypres a good thing or a bad thing ... if, just for arguments sake, it relates "facts" that 5% of the experts on this board find "wrong?" Obviously, you can take it in 5% increments till we have a number where we'd object. Now, let's say that we both agree that the number of experts we'd allow disagree is 20% .... 80% think the material covered in this History Channel Thing" is basically accurate and 20% think they've got it wrong ... NOW ... is the History Channel reaching 25 MILLION people even letting them know there is a place called Ypres and it's an important place ... worth it?

It is not enough, in my opinion, to simply produce history ... for historians - and yes, the arguments over this when a grad student were incredible ... History is for the people ... and must come out of the dust bins and the ivory towers and live ... LOOK at this board ... and see the life our little subject has ... Why, because it sells information (some "right" some "wrong" ) in a way people want to consume it ....

What is unseen and untold is unsold ... AND it only counts if people actually see it and hear it ... the IWM is an interesting place ... and they strive to keep it interesting ... MB&P is a polemic meant, I believe, to argue the case and change some minds .... and it did/does sell ...

But, I could be wrong ... I didn't like the book either ...

[bmac]

That is not history, that is propaganda.

Not to belabor the point, but all history is propaganda ... just some has more evidence and uses certain types of evidence than others ... MB&P is a polemic - meaning it's an argument.

There is a difference between using more or less evidence and inaccurate reporting/distortion. If Corrigan wishes to be taken seriously then he should get his facts right. Personally, I would also prefer fact based opinion on people rather than sly innuendo and falsehoods.

Whether the book is a polemic or not seems to me irrelevant. It does not excuse shoddy research and shabby character assassinations. If Corrigan cannot convince people with the force of his facts/arguments then some might wonder about their vailidity.

[CROONAERT]

his Sepoys in the Trenches is excellent and well researched.

Hilariously (to me) misinformed epilogue though!!!!!

Dave.

[Dikke Bertha]

I have just started to read this book. I only bought it because of the range of views expressed on this forum which goes to prove that there is no such thing as bad publicity.

I am only a few pages in and have started to annotate the text which is a sacrilege as I never write on books! This is because I have found a few errors already and I am certainly not an expert or an historian.

However I will plod on as best I can.

[Dikke Bertha]

Is it me....???

I am 250 pages into this book and I am actually enjoying it despite all the unfavourable points made. I did start of with a negative view and I did annotate the first few pages as I spotted a few factual errors or hard-to-believe statements but now that I am into the flow I find a lot of the arguments quite enlightening..!!

Is this me....am I the only one out of step..???

I freely admit that some of the broader statements regarding casualties, the effects of gas, the jolly spiffing time had by all etc might offend a few survivors or experts BUT a lot of the points raised are argued well and have made me re-think some of my automatic assumptions.

People may not like the book but it is thought provoking....or is it just me...????

[Dikke Bertha]

Is it me....???

I am 250 pages into this book and I am actually enjoying it despite all the unfavourable points made. I did start of with a negative view and I did annotate the first few pages as I spotted a few factual errors or hard-to-believe statements but now that I am into the flow I find a lot of the arguments quite enlightening..!!

Is this me....am I the only one out of step..???

I freely admit that some of the broader statements regarding casualties, the effects of gas, the jolly spiffing time had by all etc might offend a few survivors or experts BUT a lot of the points raised are argued well and have made me re-think some of my automatic assumptions.

People may not like the book but it is thought provoking....or is it just me...????