Derek Robertson Posted 4 January , 2006 Share Posted 4 January , 2006 basically characterised the entire Division as drunkards whose success on the day was down to 'dutch courage'. Des, Watch any fictional program on TV and if there is a drunken part to be portrayed, 9 times out of 10 it will have a Scottish accent. Welcome to the club of national stereotypes mate. Consider Peter Weir's film "Gallipoli" and how it portrayed the English after their landing at Suvla - the Australian soldier said something like "The English are sitting on the beach drinking tea". The Ozzies have their thoughts on the english, Holts have their very odd image of the 36th Division but WE know the truth behind the stereotypes. It is very annoying, very patronising and on the part of Holts very demeaning to their reputation. If they would stop eating their cucumber sandwiches on their croquet lawn for 2 minutes then possibly they may consider reprinting the offending text to something more worthy. Kind regards, Jock, the drunken Scot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionboxer Posted 4 January , 2006 Share Posted 4 January , 2006 For what it's worth and willing to be shot down in flames this is my comment . To go over the top and facing almost certain death I would have wanted far more than a tot of rum. These boys didn't have much of a chance and they knew it. Call it alchohol fueled bruvera or whatever they were bloody brave boys to face a hail of bullets etc. It was an exceptional man that forwent his tot. Having said that my father told me that many men in Burma in WW11 declined their tot, preferring to keep a clear head to acheive their objective. But then again it was more than luck that kept a man alive in the jungle. I know where I would rather have fought and I'm afraid it was not with my grandfather going over the top in Flanders, whether I had a tot of rum or not. Pi**ed or not they were brave men, and nothing and no one can take that away from them. Lionboxer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desmond7 Posted 5 January , 2006 Author Share Posted 5 January , 2006 Lion - there is not even a QUESTION of this Division (or any other that I know of) being drunk. It simply DID NOT happen. I wish to end this now, cos it has had its run, but if there is ANYONE who seriously believes that what the Holt book says is true ... speak up. My opinion, honestly held, is fair comment. The statement is untrue, misleading and defames the collective character of this division. Thanks for all your comments. Des Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salesie Posted 5 January , 2006 Share Posted 5 January , 2006 As for being offended ... I dare say they would have been peeved at being called Irish Nationalists but I would reckon that ANY unit whose epitaph (for this was their graveyard) was 'they pierced the German line due to alcoholic bravura' would have every justification in being offended. Best wishes all Des Des, I had intended saying no more on this matter but the notion that British soldiers would be offended at being stereotyped as hard drinking, hard fighting men is a concept that festers in me. In my experience, hard drinkers and hard fighters is an image any British soldier would be happy to have as a label, a reputation to be sought rather than take offence at. I suppose, this difference of opinion highlights the differing levels of understanding between those who have served and those who have simply read about soldiering? If you correct me and tell me you're an ex-squaddie, I'll have to ask in which army? Because it must have been a different one to me. Cheers - salesie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Posted 5 January , 2006 Share Posted 5 January , 2006 Des, I had intended saying no more on this matter but the notion that British soldiers would be offended at being stereotyped as hard drinking, hard fighting men is a concept that festers in me. In my experience, hard drinkers and hard fighters is an image any British soldier would be happy to have as a label, a reputation to be sought rather than take offence at. I suppose, this difference of opinion highlights the differing levels of understanding between those who have served and those who have simply read about soldiering? If you correct me and tell me you're an ex-squaddie, I'll have to ask in which army? Because it must have been a different one to me. Cheers - salesie. Salesie No offence meant, but what a load of old codswallop. There is a world of difference between being considered "hard fighting/hard drinking" and going into combat pissed. When you served how would your commanding officer have viewed you if you had carried out your duties drunk? I have only come across one first hand account of drunkeness on 1st July 1916. It is included in a report by the Brigadier of 69th Bde who complained that members of a 14th NF working party, including the officer, were drunk and had delayed the move of elements of his Brigade to the front line. The 14th NF were a pioneer battalion and as far as I am aware took no part in the initial assault on that day. I agree 100% with Des when he says that this slur should be righted. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desmond7 Posted 5 January , 2006 Author Share Posted 5 January , 2006 Salesie - you are right, I never served in the armed forces. What you fail to note in your comments is that these were 'citizen soldiers' (in the case of the Ulster Division on 1st July NO REGULAR battalions) most of whom would never have dreamed of joining any army prior to the outbreak of war. Therefore, I do not think they can be judged on the basis you suggest. As for reading about army service. I suggest that you have no more appreciation of the mindset of the first world war soldier than I have. It was, as they say, a different country altogether. Des Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Sheldon Posted 5 January , 2006 Share Posted 5 January , 2006 Andy At the beginning of this thread, I quoted a couple of examples of drunkenness on 1 July 1916. Scroll back. This does not mean that it was widespread, but plying soldiers with alcohol or other stimulants immediately before battle is as old as warfare. We should not be surprised to come across cases of it - which of course has nothing to do with Desmond's defence of the men of 36th Division; though I doubt that he is suggesting that nobody from that division had a tot before they advanced - and alcohol has different effects on different people. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salesie Posted 5 January , 2006 Share Posted 5 January , 2006 Andy, of course being pissed is not an ideal situation to be in during combat, but that's not the point. The point is whether the Holt's quote, particularly the alcoholic part, is offensive or not. And, more importantly, would it have been offensive to the men involved? Des takes deep offence on their behalf. I see it as praise, and believe these men would not have taken "alcoholic bravura" as a slur and would have been proud to be seen as hard drinking, hard fighting men (even though very few were pissed on the actual day). Don't forget, the Holt's quote also said, "Whatever the reasons, this was a magnificent feat of arms." I'm talking about image -v- reality and the psyche of the British soldier, not some theoretical notion that takes offence on behalf of dead men. Cheers - salesie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salesie Posted 5 January , 2006 Share Posted 5 January , 2006 Des, citizen soldier -v- regular? More theorising! When these men went in they were British soldiers. If you think the psyche of British soldiers has changed that much over the centuries then you must be on different planet let alone a "different country." You say, I have no more appreciation than you of the mindset of these men, yet you take it on yourself to take deep offence on their behalf? I find that arrogant and patronising, and I can only say, once again, this highlights the difference between those who've served and those who theorise. Cheers - salesie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desmond7 Posted 5 January , 2006 Author Share Posted 5 January , 2006 Jack is entirely correct - I have already stated that a 'tot' of rum was given in many cases. Of that I have no doubt whatsoever. Salesie - image/reality? I say that the IMAGE is one of widespread drunkeness. An image which has NO foundation in reality. My point is entirely based on the FACT that this so-called historical summation contained in a book which is widely sold contains a glaring mistake. Des Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desmond7 Posted 5 January , 2006 Author Share Posted 5 January , 2006 Salesie - your last post is obviously designed to annoy me. Have a nice day. I shall leave it to others to judge the level of arrogance and where it emanated from. Des Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 5 January , 2006 Share Posted 5 January , 2006 The point is whether the Holt's quote, particularly the alcoholic part, is offensive or not. No, it isnt. The point, supposedly introducing an historical aspect to a travel guide book, is that it is plain wrong!. Nothing more. Nothing less. Just wrong. And author or publisher worth their salt would correct it at the earliest opportunity. Or, if they wish to retain it, quote their source. To suggest otherwise, as I believe you imply, is ludicrous. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 5 January , 2006 Share Posted 5 January , 2006 Ladies & Gentlemen Please keep the personal comments out of this thread. Stick to the subject or the thread will be moderated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salesie Posted 5 January , 2006 Share Posted 5 January , 2006 Jack is entirely correct - I have already stated that a 'tot' of rum was given in many cases. Of that I have no doubt whatsoever. Salesie - image/reality? I say that the IMAGE is one of widespread drunkeness. An image which has NO foundation in reality. My point is entirely based on the FACT that this so-called historical summation contained in a book which is widely sold contains a glaring mistake. Des Des, one the very few universal truths in this world is that the vast majority of so-called FACTS are based on point of view, and my POV on this matter is obviously different to yours. So, what does that do to your statement of FACT? I'll tell you; it makes your own interpretation of the Holt's quote your point of view, that's all. (which, of course, you're entitled to hold, just as as I am to profer my own interpretation of the same quote). Cheers - salesie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Posted 5 January , 2006 Share Posted 5 January , 2006 I'm talking about image -v- reality and the psyche of the British soldier, not some theoretical notion that takes offence on behalf of dead men. I am not taking offence on behalf of anyone....I am concerned because it is historically inaccurate, and I was under the impression that we are studying actual events here and not "image" or spin. How can you see it as praise to incinuate that men could only carry out the actions they did by being drunk? It may reflect the attitude of your average squaddy today, but I would suggest that it does not reflect that of the citizen soldier, many of whom had taken the pledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salesie Posted 5 January , 2006 Share Posted 5 January , 2006 Andy, with reference to historical accuracy/inaccuracy, I can only refer you to my earlier post about point of view and ask you to think through how POV effects that most flexible of all phrases "THE FACTS OF THE MATTER." The vast majority of British soldiers are too professional to go into action pissed (then and now), but getting pissed when away from the nonsense is a much-enjoyed pastime for many of them (then and now). So, being hard drinkers and hard fighters is an image that the majority relish (then and now). And why shouldn't they relish it? British soldiers are, and always have been, hard drinking and hard fighting men. As for the citizen soldiers - many, but still a minority, may have taken the pledge, but how many actually stuck to it? Cheers - salesie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeppoSapone Posted 5 January , 2006 Share Posted 5 January , 2006 Salesie Probably more than you think. 'The Army Temperance Association' had been strongly supported by regular soldiers at the time. In the case of the WW1 volunteers. A lot were Methodists and a lot more belonged to other tee-total sects. I suggest that this would have been strongly so in the case of the 36th division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Posted 5 January , 2006 Share Posted 5 January , 2006 I am just wondering why my comment about being patronising has been moderated but another comment i.e. "arrogant and patronising", made by another member has been left intact. A little even handedness please. Too much to ask?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 5 January , 2006 Share Posted 5 January , 2006 Max A warning was posted. You ignored that warning. No other member has posted a personal comment since the warning. Because of your action this thread will be moderated as stated from the point of the warning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle bill Posted 5 January , 2006 Share Posted 5 January , 2006 welcome to our world Max Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Posted 5 January , 2006 Share Posted 5 January , 2006 The vast majority of British soldiers are too professional to go into action pissed (then and now), but getting pissed when away from the nonsense is a much-enjoyed pastime for many of them (then and now). So, being hard drinkers and hard fighters is an image that the majority relish (then and now). And why shouldn't they relish it? British soldiers are, and always have been, hard drinking and hard fighting men. This is a completely different situation to the one that Des has described. No one would argue that soldiers out of the line deserve a drink, but as you say "soldiers are too professional to go into action pissed (then and now)", not according to the Holts. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desmond7 Posted 5 January , 2006 Author Share Posted 5 January , 2006 Terry - If that is going to be the case you'd better go back to the post where I am labelled as arrogant and patronising. Personally, I don't mind it in the least. People know my form .. they can judge me on that. Des Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 5 January , 2006 Share Posted 5 January , 2006 This will end in tears, mes enfants. Going back over the thread, I find nothing original has been said after the first few posts except the FACTUAL Canadian quotes. How about dropping the dead donkey now, Pals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 5 January , 2006 Share Posted 5 January , 2006 No, Des. The editing will only take place from the warning. The rest is being left as an example of how easily a thread can dengenerate when members introduce personal comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 5 January , 2006 Share Posted 5 January , 2006 (edited) Now, one last time: read the words: "...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 nationalism, alcoholic bravura and religious fervour. Whatever the reason, it was a magnificient feat of arms." May I draw your attention to 'some say'? Not the Holts saying: the Holts are, one supposes, quoting from at least two sources. On this site, most of us are guilty of unsubstantiated comment, few give references, and many, when challenged, go very quiet. Mountain. Molehill. That's it, I'm off! Edited 5 January , 2006 by langleybaston1418 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now