Holts should reconsider

[Desmond7]

I was browsing in Waterstones and picked up Major and Mrs. Holts guide to the Battlefields - South.

You know my interests so it will be no surprise that I flicked to the section on Thiepval/Ulster Tower.

I was astonished and angered to find the Ulster Division attack described as being 'alcohol fuelled' - the exact terminology escapes me now but suffice to say that Holts had basically characterised the entire Division as drunkards whose success on the day was down to 'dutch courage'.

Where does this man draw his information? I know of only a few minor instances of drunkeness on this occasion. It has been pointed out time and again on this forum that the stories of soldiers being given loads of drink to make them go over the top is a myth. Why is it that Holt persists in keeping this unwarranted, condescending and entirely false description in his book?

He and she should apologise and retract unless they can provide me with evidence that there is ANY merit in their statements.

Edited 9 January , 2006 by Terry_Reeves

[PhilB]

I can understand your displeasure, Desmond. The Irish, as a fighting nation and a major part of the British Army, have not normally required Dutch courage!

I`m sure the general question of rum issues before an attack has been previously discussed. Can anyone point me to the thread? I personally wouldn`t refuse a tot in those circumstances! Phil B

PS Remember John Wayne and Victor McClaglan - was it the Quiet Man?

[John_Hartley]

Des

As a newspaper man you will know all the old jokes about using the word "allegedly".

I have in front of me Holts Guide to the Somme (1999 reprint). The relevent passage:-

"...They were the only soldiers north of the Albert-Bapaume road to pierce the German lines . Some say that their achievement was due to a mixture of Irish individualism, alcoholic bravura and religious fervour. Whatever the reason, it was a magnificient feat of arms."

"Some" also racially stereotype other groups in other circumstances.

I would note also that Holts Guide appears to need no "fruity description" for the Liverpool and Manchester Pals capture of Montauban.

Phil - unless you're deliberately being provocative, I suspect you know full well the difference being having a tot of rum and "going over the top" pi**ed out of your head.

[PhilB]

Phil - unless you're deliberately being provocative, I suspect you know full well the difference being having a tot of rum and "going over the top" pi**ed out of your head.

Of course I do. And I assumed it went without saying. Which bit of my post misled you to think otherwise? I was under the impression, however, that a rum issue was almost the norm before going over the top, though some commanders forbade it. Am I mistaken? Phil B

[Max (UK)]

characterised the entire Division as drunkards whose success on the day was down to 'dutch courage'.

I also thought that a swig (or two) of Rum was fairly common before going over the top. Dutch courage - seems fair enough to me, but I'm no expert.

Maybe you (Desmond) could post the exact wording? It might help to understand what offended you so much.....cos I can't see anything wrong with it (IMHO)

[John_Hartley]

Which bit of my post misled you to think otherwise?

The bit where you mentioned troops being given a tot of rum - when the context of the Des' post is the Holts inference that the Division went over pi**ed. I couldnt quite work out why you should mention the tot.

John

[Guest Simon Bull]

Des

Have you tried writing to the Holts to request a correction?

[Desmond7]

Holt - as JohnHartley rightly says - uses the term 'alcoholic bravura'. This (to me) conjures up an image of wholesale boozing and indiscipline. Troops who have been wholesale boozing would not IMHO have been capable of what the Ulster Div. achieved on 1st July 1916.

I really do not care what anyone says about the Ulster Div on 1st July .. call them Orange, call them political, call them whatever you want .. but do not call them, as I submit Holt has branded them, a bunch of pissheads who needed drink to make them successful.

There is a universe of difference between 'alcoholic bravura' and a tot of rum.

Simon ... I wouldn't waste my ink on asking for an apology from Holt. I'd far rather put him/her to shame here where it counts. IMHO.

Max UK .... does that explain why I am annoyed?

[Moonraker]

Um. I hesitate to get involved in this, but do so as a detached observer given to pedantry. The OED defines "bravura" as "a brilliant or ambitious action or display" rather than an act of "indiscipline". Perhaps Holt overstates the situation somewhat, but "alcoholic bravura" does not give me the impression of the Division being "pissheads who needed a drink to make them successful" and I don't think that Holt is suggesting this. I do think that the rum would have helped.

Moonraker

[Desmond7]

And I think you are soft soaping.

What is the average punter - and it is they these books are aimed at - to think when they read of an 'alcoholically brilliant or ambitious action or display'???? Of course Holt is insinuating that they were drunk.

Why introduce alcohol? What evidence does he have beyond the story of one man who, BECAUSE MANY MEN DID NOT take up their rum ration, got extra tots?

Does it mention alchohol anywhere else? In connection with the actions of ANY other division that day?

Does Holt use such a throw-away and wholly innacurate line to describe the 29th Div for instance? Or the 32nd? I could go on and on ...

This is misleading nonsense. And it should be corrected by WHOEVER runs Holts NOW.

[ianw]

I sympathise with Des here. The tone of Holt's comment does tend to demean the efforts of the Ulster Division. As I understand it, distribution of rum was very much at the whim of Divisional , Brigade and Battalion commanders with great differences in distribution even within the same division. Having a tee-total commander was not appreciated by many troops. At the front line level, I have heard tell of sergeants plying those paralysed with fear with rum, if only to shut them up.

[John_Hartley]

Does it mention alchohol anywhere else? In connection with the actions of ANY other division that day?

Does Holt use such a throw-away and wholly innacurate line to describe the 29th Div for instance? Or the 32nd? I could go on and on ...

To the best of my knowledge, no it doesnt. And it certainly doesnt in respect of 30th Division. (at least in "Guide to the Somme"

And I entirely agree with you, Des. But you should write to the publishers....

[Desmond7]

I have received information that Holts Tours as presently constituted, DO NOT use such terminology in their walking tours anymore.

For that I am thankful.

John - I get the funny feeling my message is getting across loud and clear!

Des

[Kate Wills]

Alcoholic bravura and alcohol-fuelled both imply to this general reader a scene of undisciplined boozing. I undestand Des's objection. Furthermore (and perhaps Des can confirm this) the 36th was as likely to have many strict Teetoatallers in its ranks, who would read this as an even greater slur than the average enjoyer of an odd tot or two.

[andigger]

Does it mention alchohol anywhere else? In connection with the actions of ANY other division that day?

I would still have to see the quote in context, but yes I would agree that if this is the only reference to alcohol consumption and it implies that the Ulster Div (aka Orangies ) were solely successful because they were drunk it would be inappropriate. It would seem odd that the Holts would make such a claim given there reputation as respected battlefield guides rather than underground political aggitators. Thats just my two cents though. Andy

[Moonraker]

Desmond: in your first post you say that Holts should apologise.

Later on, in reply to Simon Bull's suggestion: "Have you tried writing to the Holts to request a correction?" you add

" I wouldn't waste my ink on asking for an apology from Holt. I'd far rather put him/her to shame here where it counts."

Then:

"This is misleading nonsense. And it should be corrected by WHOEVER runs Holts NOW."

OK. You may think it a waste of ink asking for an apology, but surely it's not a waste to write to point out the error, ask what justification there is for repeating this use of words and citing other authorities' evidence as to the division's demeanour.

"Whoever runs Holts" won't correct the "misleading nonsense" unless someone tells them about it. You obviously feel very strongly about it, so you're the obvious person. Who else is going to?

Moonraker

[Desmond7]

1. Cos there is as much chance of the publishers correcting as I have of going to the moon.

2. This has peeved me off so much I thought I'd air it here. If we are talking wide circulation in WW1 terms, this is as good as a story in the Belfast Telegraph ... now there's an idea.

What's Marty Lindsay's mobile no. ????

[Kate Wills]

Des,

How about making a little flyer to insert in every copy you can find in shops and libraries. This may grab the attention of the local paper. Or you could do a Joe Orton and deface all the library copies...

[Moonraker]

1. Cos there is as much chance of the publishers correcting as I have of going to the moon.

Oh I dunno. A few months I had the temerity to query a trifling point in a new book by one of our most distinguished members, my aim being to ensure that my own records (unit locations in Wiltshire during WWI) were correct. It turned out that the point was only half-wrong, and I felt embarrassed at raising it. Our gallant member graciously acknowledged the error and emailed recently to say his book was being reprinted and that he would add a couple of words to remedy the situation.

Moonraker

[John_Hartley]

Andy - the context is in post #3 above.

Des - This Forum does have a wide circulation as far as it goes. But it's your average punter who buys Holt prior to their first trip. I am surprised how bashful you seem to be about wanting to take this on.

John

[andigger]

Moonraker - It would seem the difference being that your author was a Forum Pal and you knew him 'personally'. In Des' case the publisher is some distant office space. Where as I do think he should contact the publisher, I don't get the sense that it will have as much impact as your scenario. Andy

[Desmond7]

FAO Newsdesk Belfast Telegraph

AS the 90th anniversary of the first day of the Battle of the Somme draws near, the reputation of the famous 36th (Ulster) Division has been dragged through the mud.

Many thousands are expected to travel to the battlefields of France this summer for the commemorations - and a sizeable percentage of these tourists will glean their knowledge from Major and Mrs. Holt's best-selling guide (personally I forget its name).

But many Northern Ireland citizens will be outraged to read the book's short summary of the 36th Division's achievements on 1st July in which a picture is painted of the attack being driven by 'acoholic bravura' - a depiction which some local World War One researchers regard as little more than a slur upon those who fought and died in one of the epic actions of that bloody day.

While it is historically undisputable that a small rum ration was issued to soldiers in the trenches, the idea that the quantity received by individuals was enough to send them charging forward in a drink-fuelled frenzy does not bear examination.

Martin Middlebrook, in his near legendary study of the 'First Day on the Somme', makes only one mention of alcohol in his account of the Ulster Division's attack.

One soldier recounted how a comrade received more than his share of rum because so many of the men refused it before going over the top.

As Middlebrook's witness recalled: "He later went over fighting mad and got captured."

Hardly a portrait of a formation pumped up with booze!

In fact, it is much more likely that the men of the Ulster Division suffered from pure and simple heartburn while fighting at the Somme.

Several accounts speak of the men suffering discomfort because they ate a heartly breakfast of bacon and onions before making their attack on the infamous Schwaben Redoubt where no less than 5,500 were killed, wounded or became prisoners.

Of this total almost 2,000 died and Middlebrook himself states that the number of unwounded prisoners was minimal due to the savage and intense nature of the fighting.

Now add in quotes from various military experts; the odd General; even yer man Tim Collins if you want .. he has his uses.

Des

[Jim Clay]

. Or you could do a Joe Orton and deface all the library copies...

Oo-err, Kate, as a "Library" person, even in support of Des, I couldn't condone such acts. D'you know how many books are defaced, trashed or stolen each year? No, nor do I, but you know what I mean..... Mind you, the unnecessary snide stereotype in the quoted passage deserves action. Des's draft "disgusted of Ballymena" letter above may be what is required.

Jim

[salesie]

It seems to me, the main tone of this thread is political correctness gone mad.

If the Holt's quote provided by John Hartley is accurate then surely the Holt's are praising this division's achievment's when they say, "Whatever the reasons it was a magnificent feat of arms" - meaning in spite of "some" who give a mixture of three reasons for their success?

Why is alcholic bravura any more offensive than Irish nationalism or religious fervour? In my opinion, all three so-called reasons demean the discipline and fighting spirit of these men and that the last sentence in the Holt's quote identifies this.

Cheers - salesie.

[squirrel]

Des,

I like it - very good indeed.

I think that the remark in the context used is reprehensible.

Also, if drink was such an important factor in achieving a successful assault then if the Generals had got the whole army on the Western Front p****d they would have been unstoppable.