A load of balls?

[Jon Miller]

During the last few days, with numerous Great War programmes to watch and comment upon, naturally a number of criticisms have been made. Of course, we all have different aspects of the War that we like to concentrate upon be it weapons, politics, the human side etc. I for one would never notice the No 4 rifle being used in 'The Somme', but it upset others as we all want to see the perfect programme.

It has been noticeable that as far as I can tell, no criticism has been made about the 'Last Tommy'. Well, all the fine comments made are of course true, and I don't wish to devalue them in any way, but..........there was one comment that struck me like a thunderbolt. The narrator suggested that one officer (we know him to be Capt Neville) bought footballs for his men to kick on 1 July 16, but not to keep their minds off the bullets flying around, which was what I've always been given to understand, but because they were so confident that they would just be walking across in no danger, the footballs were being provided to alieviate boredom. Where did the BBC get this idea from? Surely it is nonsense? Isn't it? And if it is nonsense, what a shame it was included in an otherwise perfect programme. Surely you can't say they were so relaxed they needed to play football across No Man's Land, and then have Harry Patch saying that anyone who said they weren't scared were liars. Can someone clear this matter up, please?

[CROONAERT]

Hi Jon.

Good to see you here again!

At the risk of incurring the wrath of the whole forum I'll mention an observation that I've always had (and I'm not putting down any of the veterans here - after all they "saw it in colour"). Memories fade and stories exaggerate through time. A soldier in the field only sees what is directly in front of him and can only describe what he, himself, and those in his immediate surroundings felt and witnessed. He basically has no idea of the "big picture". Too many interviewers, etc. have listened to the veteran's stories and taken them for gospel truth on the whole scene when ,in reality, they are really listening to just "one man's war". Each soldier was an individual ,and so would have had his own individual thoughts and feelings. One man can never speak for an army.

Many men did not speak of their experiences for many ,many years and simply suppressed all thoughts of them. Throughout this period the tales of others and other outside influences can affect recollection. Some things can simply be forgotten and replaced (for example, one veteran I knew when describing an attack on the Somme was clearly somewhere else, in another year through his description of the equipment and scenery but- who was I to tell him?).

I know this hasn't really cleared the matter up, Jon, but I hope it gives an (my) explaination to what you ask.

Dave.

[swizz]

This is exactly the point made by Alistair Thomson in his book 'Anzac Memories: Living with the Legend'. He suggests that veterans consciously or unconsciously suppressed certain memories and became very familiar with other memories. None of us have a perfect memory for events!

Swizz

[stevew]

but..........there was one comment that struck me like a thunderbolt. The narrator suggested that one officer (we know him to be Capt Neville) bought footballs for his men to kick on 1 July 16

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jon,

I can't remember which program I saw it in, but I have seen reference to the footballs before. I maybe wrong but I think it was one of Richard Holmes programs............apologies if I am wrong

Steve

[Desmond7]

A major reference for this is - of course - Middlebrook.

Good to see you back Jon.

Re the footballs - I think several bns. from different regiments did the football thing over the course of the war. Something rings a bell about the London Irish at Loos?

I wonder to myself if Neville was hedging his bets?

1. Everything would be hunky dory and the men WOULD be able to kick their way across to the German trenches.

2. Maybe he reckoned that in the final 10 minutes or so, the strain on the men would be building to an intolerable level. Given the propensity of the average British soldier to talk/play football, perhaps he reckoned that the balls and banter would keep spirits up in the final few moments? You know the score ... the slagging about who would kick the ball into the German trenches, who couldn't hit a barn door, who had two left feet when it came to playing the game. Pure conjecture.

3. Maybe the story illustrates the relative innocence of Pals Bns. who had not been through the grinder at Loos? Perhaps he really did feel that something as simple as the ball being kicked forward would spur the men on and keep their minds off what was going on around them? I think they were swiftly brought back to reality on that score.

4. You could say it was a typical gesture of a war-time officer of that period. He'd seen the men playing football in their 'off' time and reckoned it would be a jolly good show for them to do the same in action? very good for the breakfast table papers etc.

Just my thoughts.

Des

[burlington]

I think that the 'original' football is in the Museum in Albert, or is it in the IWM London? I can't remember where I saw it!

There is also this group in the Museum in Albert:

[Desmond7]

Just an afterthought on the broader theme of personal memories ..

I have seen, as I am sure many members have, letters home written by soldiers in the aftermath of battles. Of course, they mask the reality, but occasionally the curtain is opened a little and comments like ..

Post Somme 1st July "if people had seen what we've seen, they wouldn't be in much of a mood for holdiay making ..." A direct reference to the fact that the seaside excursions were still going on while the bodies were still being counted in France from the initial attack.

But, and we've mentioned this before on forum, there MUST have been a substantial number of men (maybe all of 'em) who subscribed to the 'It won't happen to me syndrome" (there's a scientific name for that!!).

I'd be absolutely sure that fear was in the hearts of all but a very few individuals in such circumstances and Harry Patch is expressing a sentiment widely voiced by veterans of all wars. Or is he ...?

I have read accounts of the ACW and other conflicts where a kind of battle fever takes over the mentality of ordinary soldiers ... the 'Bloody Angle' at the Wilderness battle where men fought literally toe to toe and used bayoneted rifles as spears etc

So maybe there are occasions when men become hyper-involved in such fighting?

There's probably a name for that syndrome too!!

[PhilB]

None of us have a perfect memory for events!

Swizz

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My wife does. Phil B

[Tom Morgan]

I agree about people's memory playing tricks. It happens to us all. In the programme though, it was the narrator who suggested that the football episode illustrated supreme confidence that there would be nothing to interrupt the advance across No-Man's Land. There was nothing to suggest that it was one of the veterans who had described the story in those terms. Like Jon, I've always understood that the footballs were provided to help take the men's minds off the coming ordeal, and give them something familiar to latch on to.

Tom

[squirrel]

Wouild agree with Tom here.

1/18th County of Londons London irish Rifles kicked a football when they adavanced at Loos in September 1915.

From what I have read it was the idea of the captain of the football team, referred to as Sgt Edwards in the book Saturday Night Soldiers, who had the ball tied to his pack by the lace when they took over the front line and attack trenches on the night of 24/25th September.

[Gunboat]

I have always thought that the kicking of footballs was just a clerver idea to boost the moral of the men and possibly a display of confidence and disadain to the enemy. Given that most men at the time loved their football it would be an encouragement that the ball would be booted forward and the men would go forward and kick the ball around amongst themselves as they go forward. Even if it was thought the barrage has done as much damage as was predicted it is unlikely as the commentator suggested that the men would have time or indeed be allowed to kick a ball about to alleviate boredom. Perhaps as sport was considered as an important activity when the men were behind the lines that there was meant to be reinforce a message that the ground captured that day would be the new rear lines?

It is interesting to note that Captain Neville wasn't killed in the act of kicking one of the balls as was reported at the time but walking nonchalantly forward joking with the men and smoking a cigarette.

[CROONAERT]

So maybe there are occasions when men become hyper-involved in such fighting?

There's probably a name for that syndrome too!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Germans call it "Blutrausch".

Dave.

[Clive Maier]

It is my understanding – and I can’t find the reference so I may be quite wrong – that Captain Nevill was the son of a clergyman and had been brought up to have strong views on the evil of drink. So much so that he denied his men the tiny comfort of rum before the attack and thought the footballs would be an alternative diversion. If so, I think we can assume the wheeze was less popular with the men than the legend suggests. In his Battle of the Somme: A topographical history (under the heading Carnoy), Gerald Gliddon notes that fellow East Surrey officer JR Ackerley described Nevill as a ‘battalion buffoon’. Whether this was affectionate, critical or a bit of both is not clear.

In Forgotten Voices of the Great War, Max Arthur records this from Nevill’s CO, Lieutenant Colonel Alfred Irwin.

“We were all very young and optimistic, and for myself, I didn't think much about the future. I took it for granted that the wire would be cut, that we'd massacre the Boche in their front line, get to our objective and then be sent to do something else next day.

I was battalion commander on the first day and it was difficult to know exactly what to do. One's instinct was to get on with the chaps, and to see what was going on. On the other hand, we'd been warned over and over again that officers' lives must not be thrown away in doing something they oughtn't - in fact that commanding officers should lead from behind, and only go forward when the attack had lost its impetus. And that's what I tried to do.

Captain Nevill was commanding B Company, and a few days before the battle he came to me with a suggestion. He said that as he and his men were all equally ignorant of what their conduct would be when they got into action, he thought it might be helpful - as he had 400 yards to go and he knew it would be covered by machine-gun fire - if he could furnish each platoon with a football and allow them to kick it forward and follow it.

I sanctioned the idea on condition that he and his officers really kept command of their units and didn't allow it to develop into a rush after the ball. If a man came across the football, he could kick it forward but he mustn't chase after it. I think myself, it did help them enormously, it took their minds off it.”

[Jon Miller]

Thanks Pals, for all your views! In fact, some of you have gone far and wide beyond what I was thinking about, and brought in other interesting ideas. I have to say that Tom Morgan was the first who really seemed to catch on to what I'm on about.

I have always understood that the footballs were provided to give the men something familiar to concentrate upon while going over the top and on into No Man's Land even if, as Des remarked, they would soon be rudely awakened once they got going. NEVER have I come across any alternative to this version of events. Yet here, on what was probably the most important Great War programme of the year, BBC1 primetime, the narrator, who was only mentioning the Somme in passing, decides to throw out this completely new take on the story, and will be believed by all who heard him, and don't know any different. Where did this idea come from, and who decided it would be put into such an important programme? I know the narrator was trying to illustrate how confident the British Army was on 1-7-16, but surely he should have picked on something else?

[Jon Miller]

Thanks Clive for that - which arrived while I was writing my reply.

[John_Hartley]

Some things can simply be forgotten and replaced

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with what Dave has to say on the subject. In my files I have copies of all the accounts that Martin Middlebrooke collected for "First Day on the Somme" from veterans of 17/Manchester.

One chap gives a good personal account in eminently quotable language. It wasnt used in the book. Why? Because it was clearly not related to the 1 July - none of the checkable bits - like weather, presence of gas, where they started from, and so on - concur with the known facts.

It was, in fact, an account of Trones Wood, several days later. And even that had been embellished, no doubt over time.

John

[Clive Maier]

We will never know what Nevill really thought. I believe his convictions about drink played a part but were not the whole story. He probably thought the pursuit of a ball would help the men clear the trench if nothing more. But he may have had another motive entirely. On the first day of the Somme, the men were loaded with kit and told to walk steadily towards the enemy in the full light of a July morning. A prescription for death as we now know. As his CO reveals, Nevill knew he had 400 yards to cover under machine-gun fire. Were his footballs a ruse to circumvent the order to walk? He effectively gained permission for his men to run - as best they could with all that kit. As it was, poor Nevill was dead within 20 yards by most accounts. In other words, if he had started in the goalmouth, he would barely have made it out of the penalty area. He was 22 and charged with leading men into that. Buffoon or not, he did it.

[Chief_Chum]

Hi Jon,

Your question is a very sensible one and worth persuing. Productions companies often get the wrong end of the stick and make strange claims but I am surprised this one sneaked under the radar.

The director of 'The Last Tommy' was Harvey Lilley at Quickfire Media. The easiest way to get your answer is to email and ask him; Quickfire's website is www.quickfiremedia.com and the email address is info@quickfiremedia.com

Cheers,

Taff

[the gunners dream]

Hello All,

If anyone is interested, I have a copy of a letter written by one of Nevill's friends to his sister which details what happened to him.

Give me a shout if you'd all like to see it?

Steve

[Paul Reed]

If it's not one published in the book about Billie then I for one would like to see it Steve - thanks for the offer.

[the gunners dream]

Paul,

To be honest I don't know, the book is on my 'To read list! The copy came by way of a lady I got to know when I did a tour for Holts. We got talking and I mentioned that I'd served at RAF Coltishall and she talked about Nevill's CSM Charley Wells who came from the village of Coltishall/Horstead. She sent me a photograph of Well's company and a copy of the letter.

I'll post it later and then you can see if it's the same letter.

Steve

[the gunners dream]

This is the letter in 3 stages. Sorry about the size.

Steve

[Paul Reed]

Thanks for that - interesting stuff.

[Jon Miller]

I have taken Taff's advice, and used the e-mail address he provided to see if I would be fortunate to get a reply, and one that answers my query. I await a reply with interest.......

[ianw]

Quite agree that memory can be a very unreliable mechanism.

As regards Nevill, am I right in recalling that his diary has been published. Does it record his thoughts on the footballs?

I think this was just a harmless morale booster and to interprete their use as proof of over-confidence is ridiculous - a complete non sequitur. I remember raising my eyebrows at the comment during the programme.