Mud, Blood and Poppycock

[auchonvillerssomme]

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...????

I agree with you, I would like to think that most of us would read the book with an open mind and actually be provoked, whats the point of critical thinking if we agree with everything thats being said, as long as our arguments are well thought out and researched I wouldn't presume to critique a book for someone else to make a decison on whether they would read it or not but I enjoy the comments in the review section. Oh yes and I enjoyed the book.

Mick

[Roxy]

Dikke,

I also agree with you, but I can see why it may not be to everyone's taste.

Each to their own.

Roxy

[Dikke Bertha]

Thank you both auchonvillersomme and roxy.

In the face of so much criticism I thought that I might have been missing something by having different views.

Now I feel comforted.

Regards and thanks

[kerrychris]

I have seen this book in several different shops and keep picking it up thinking that i'll buy it and add it to the others that i'd like to get through.

By the sounds of it there are a few members who think it shouldn't have been published at all, surely it's not that bad even if there are omissions or errors. Maybe some people take their critiques of a book too seriously. I am always open minded about what i read and if i don't like it i won't continue.

I'm certainly not a historian and know little about the great war (which is why i'm reading about it in the first place) so i'm going to give this book a chance when i've finished the ones i'm currently working my way through.

So, now that i've read a few other people's thoughts about the book i'm looking forward to reading it!

Chris

[Dikke Bertha]

Finished at last.

Overall I enjoyed this book although therewere a number of statements which I could not agree with.

However there were many points argued in detail which changed my views and made me think about the common perceived perceptions. Very stimulating in that respect.

In view of the amount of adverse criticism of this book on the forum I would hesitate to recommend it but I would say not to let the same criticism stop anybody from reading this book and forming their own opinion.

Regards

[Neil Clark]

If I were stuck on a desert island "Mud, Blood and Poppycock" would be my ideal read. A refreshingly good book that has been very well written. This book is probably one of the best books ever written on the Great War if you are interested in factual numbers and percentages...

[Max]

If I were stuck on a desert island "Mud, Blood and Poppycock" would be my ideal read. A refreshingly good book that has been very well written. This book is probably one of the best books ever written on the Great War. But then thats only my opinion...

At last, satire is alive and well

[ianw]

"So what book have chosen for the island. Remember that the Bible and Shakespeare are already there."

"I think I'll take something by that nice Mr Corrigan".

Must be a wind up !

[Roxy]

"I think I'll take something by that nice Mr Corrigan".

Must be a wind up !

No thanks, I'll take something by that nice chap, Alan Clark.

Roxy

[Justin Moretti]

"I think I'll take something by that nice Mr Corrigan".

Must be a wind up !

No thanks, I'll take something by that nice chap, Alan Clark.

Roxy

Or someone whose initials are DLG...?

[jamiemcginlay]

I'm glad I discovered this thread! I'm almost finished reading this book and although I've really enjoyed it and found it a good read I was uneasy about the way Corrigan tramples over all opposition (bet it had a great review in the Mail!).

I actually wasn't sure if I would continue reading after wading through the introduction, I think he claims four or five times that some other historian or opponent has 'an axe to grind'. Since Mr. Corrigan is the product of the English public school and comes from a military background I think the same could be said of him! There is a fine line between someone with an experienced insight into a subject, and 'an axe to grind' and I think he would have been better sticking to his argument and avoiding the poison pen.

As it turns out I suppose the vituperation gives you useful warning to treat his statistics with caution. As it happens I agree with a lot that he said and find the statistics interesting and insightful, but some arguments seem strange such as early in the book where he seems to imply that because the British wern't used to continental warfare we fail to see our casualty figures in their proper context. I'm sure most of the readers of the book would already know that the Germans and French suffered higher casualties, but this doesn't lessen the impact of Britain's losses, and Corrigan forgets to mention that, of the Europeans who apparently take such losses in their stride, the Russians, Germans and Austro-Hungarians ended the war in a state of revolution, and the French were a spent force. I also didn't like his assertions regarding the need for Britain to go to war in the first place. I agree that with the invasion of Belgium Britain had no choice, but his assertions that the war was in Britain's interest isn't good enough. Much of his argument seems to be based on the assumption that the Germans would have occupied France as they did after 1940 and closed Europe off from Britain. Isn't there an argument that they would have withdrawn as they did after 1871 and simply demanded reparations from France? I'm not saying they would have, simply that the question should be asked.

I would definitely recommend the book as I do think the view of the Great War and the British Army's performance has been badly misrepresented. I suppose books like this will help redress the balance and that as usual, neither side, traditional or revisionst, is right. The truth lies somewehere between the two camps.

(P.S. One last gripe is Corrigan's habit of referring constantly to 'England' and 'the English' when he i actually discussing Britains role in the war. This is not acceptable and becomes even more irritating when referring to the role of the British Emprie and all of the Imperial Forces. Saying that this is nit picking is not good enough, it is bad history pure and simple. In the end language is a tool and although you cant expect politicians to use it with accuracy I think historians should.

[nfh249]

I thoroughly enjoyed it and think the key is to read it bearing in mind the objective/view point of the author and make your own opinion (such as whether you chose to believe completely his interpretation of satistics or 'facts'), but this is true of any book dealing with factual subjects. If the author fails to convince you to his point of view, fair enough, but I don't believe there is such a thing as a definitive history.

A friend of mine who has just become interesting in WW1 read this at the same time as I did and made favourable comments about things he had never previously heard about or knew and it fired his interest to learn more, surely a good thing.

I totally agree with jamie's comments, the truth lies somewhere in the middle...

Regards,

Neil.

I would definitely recommend the book as I do think the view of the Great War and the British Army's performance has been badly misrepresented. I suppose books like this will help redress the balance and that as usual, neither side, traditional or revisionst, is right. The truth lies somewehere between the two camps.

[Dikke Bertha]

I am delighted to see some positive reports on this book as I have recently finished reading it and enjoyed it very much. It changed a number of my views and opened my eyes to a lot of things which makes it a good book in my opinion.

[2ndCMR]

Obsessive actions in the defense of virtue is no sin

A paraphrase of Barry Goldwater?

This fellow reminds me a Canadian officer's WWI comment on his 'Imperial' colleagues:

"They are either pleasant, quietly efficient chaps who can't do enough to help, or arrogant, ignorant boors. There seems to be no half-way with them."

Wish I could remember the attribution.

' Not the next Fuller obviously.

Presumably his statistics overlook the 'intangibles' such as the moral worth of a volunteer vs. a conscript.

What was left of the volunteers by 1918? Precious little and we've been paying the price ever since IMO.

[David Seymour]

Since Mr. Corrigan is the product of the English public school and comes from a military background

On the flyleaf of his new book, "Blood, Sweat and Arrogance", it says that he was educated at the Royal School Armagh and the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst.

Best wishes,

David

[gporta]

What was left of the volunteers by 1918?

The conscripts who filled the gaps did pretty well in The Last Hundred Days.

Gloria

[Guest Simon W]

Just finished M,B and P. I'm much in favour of the revisionist view of Haig and the British contribution to the war, which is what drew me to the book initially. I have to say I liked the style...its a series of arguments that can be read almost in isolation to one another, rather than a linear style history book that must be read from start to finish and I think that will attract new readers. Admittedly, the language is overly testy in its reference to politicians but it does add some context to the relationship between Haig and Lloyd George. And was Churchill's time in the trenches as minimal as described?. I thought the point made about the configuration of regiments in relation to where its soldiers were drawn from was well made, and the contribution made by the Americans against a tricky political backdrop informative. Overall, I enjoyed it. Its reads well, and while there are some errors I didn't find it detracting too much from the overall content.