Desmond7 Posted 5 January , 2006 Author Share Posted 5 January , 2006 OOPs just read the 'some' bit .. it remains my contention that the 'some' = get out clause. Langley - I was content to let the donkey expire quite a few posts ago. And for the record, I agree with what you say about the relevant information. I believe that I've made my point fairly and honestly and not from any rose tinted attitude. Terry - while ACCEPTING moderator's judgement ... which by the way, I believe is vital for the well-being of this forum ... I merely state that I made no character judgement on anyone. Anyone with whom I've had a remote falling out with on this forum will know that I do not hold grudges .. I even provided the master troll Jimmy Knacky with a great deal of info despite his attempts to 'wind me up'. I shall continue in that vein. Des From a clean-up point of view, I will fully understand if this post is deleted. That is not me being sarcastic by the way. The main points of the thread were, as Langley rightly points out, 'done and dusted' some time ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Posted 5 January , 2006 Share Posted 5 January , 2006 Am with max on this one Holts are wrong and should be brought to task bruce Cheers Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salesie 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. There is undoubted truth in your post, Beppo, but several points come to mind to tell me that teetotallers were a minority (in number but not, of course, in voice): 1) The work of Kipling, in particular, gives us a good and contemporary pre-ww1 insight into the "attitude" of your average Tommy, and, of course, into the attitude of the general public towards "their own" soldiers. 2) The recently repealed licensing laws were actually introduced during ww1 to ensure that many workers (industrial and farming) were not unduly influenced by the demon drink and thus their productivity adversley affected. Why the need to introduce such laws if temperance was widespread? Consequently, are we to believe that the drinking culture of the majority of men at the front was different to the communities most came from? 3) The New Army's system of training and indoctrination was as close to the regular army's as was possible. Are we to believe that the regular army's popular culture did not rub off, despite the efforts of the High-Command to ensure that as far as possible it did? 4) I haven't studied the demographic make-up of the Ulster Division, but I find it hard to believe that if this unit contained men from the factorys and shipyards of Belfast, they didn't bring a drinking culture along with them. It seems to me that modern taboos and political correctness, coupled with some old-fashioned values about drink, are at work in this thread. I would argue that alcohol, and it being close to the majority of Tommys' hearts, played as big a part in the British Army's undoubted successes over the centuries as its leadership from above did (Churchill himself was pissed most of the time). I repeat, I can see no offence to the Ulster Division in the Holt's quote, and still believe that the majority of those in that division would feel the same. Cheers - salesie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Sunray Posted 5 January , 2006 Share Posted 5 January , 2006 ... 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... I served in the Infantry from 1986-90 so I'm fairly up to date with my knowledge of the average squaddy. In my experience he is a proud, professional, articulate, higly trained and highly motivated individual. He is also, on the whole, a hard drinking, hard fighting individual - but never drunk on duty!! Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desmond7 Posted 5 January , 2006 Author Share Posted 5 January , 2006 AN IMPORTANT POINT In the 2004 edition of the book (Pen and Sword) the actual quote attributes the success of the division to a combination of 'Irish Individualism ... etc etc' Earlier, the phrase 'Irish Nationalism' was reported. May I ask, if 'Irish Nationalism' was the original phrase and has it since been changed? I think it only fair to state that 'Irish indivudualism' is the phrase used in the book which I have perused. Des Finally, Salesie .... my contention is:- whether or not the Ulster Dvision's members enjoyed a drink or not is immaterial. Their Divisional state of sobriety on 1st July 1916 at 7.30am is the measuring stick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Morgan Posted 5 January , 2006 Share Posted 5 January , 2006 (edited) Des, which book do you mean? Is it "Western Front - South"? If so, there was no 2004 edition. The book came out for the first time in 2005. It says "Irish individualism." John H. mentions his 1999 edition of the Holts' "Somme" guide and he quotes "Irish Nationalism." (Can't check a current edition of "somme" to see what it says as they are all sealed.) Tom Edited 5 January , 2006 by Tom Morgan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 5 January , 2006 Share Posted 5 January , 2006 Des My apologies - it would appear a Freuduian slip entered the transcription of my original quote. I have rechecked my 1999 guide and it says "individualism" - I have amended my original post. I suspect even the Holts have sufficient savvy not to have put "nationalism" into this particular context. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desmond7 Posted 5 January , 2006 Author Share Posted 5 January , 2006 Cheers Tom - Western Front South - I was going by the 'first published' detail for the 2004 date. The book I was looking at has the Welsh Dragon memorial in colour on the front cover. Publishers given as Pen and sword. Des Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desmond7 Posted 5 January , 2006 Author Share Posted 5 January , 2006 No probs John. I think this serves as a good example of the desire to keep this on a historically accurate basis. Des Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auimfo Posted 5 January , 2006 Share Posted 5 January , 2006 (edited) Having just read this thread I'm disappointed with myself for not finding it sooner - I'm always up for a little thrust and parry!! Being a total outsider on this topic with no barrows to push, I can only say that the contentious issue appears to fall upon the "some people say" point. Can someone tell us if there was ever anyone who suggested this be the truth or perhaps a perpetuated myth. Either way if someone did originally suggest/imply it then Holts would be correct in making the comment as they don't claim it to be the truth themselves. And to be honest I didn't read to much into the quote anyway. It would probably have been more prudent to leave it out, but like Salesie, it came across to me that they were being praised for their performance and not denigrated. In fact the implication I got was that the 'some' referred to a minority and that their view was almost certainly incorrect. Tim L. Hang on till I get me helmet!! Edited 5 January , 2006 by Auimfo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desmond7 Posted 5 January , 2006 Author Share Posted 5 January , 2006 Tim - no need for helmets, keep yer bush hat on! For the record - I give one example of how a number of authors have described the attack. Holts is the only case where I have seen it attributed to (in any degree) 'alcoholic bravura' . "Another success had been won by the 36th Ulster Division, recruited from the Protestant Ulster Volunteer Force, which had opposed the Irish Home Rule bill of 1914. Their fiery militarism - perhaps fed by the only just quelled rebellion in Dublin of easter week - had won them a success unmatched by any other formation under Haig's command." Susanne Everett (wife of John Keegan) - in World War One. There are several others, but I do not have my books to hand at the mo. You can check out the character and background of some of the men from my home town on my website. Link below. Click on 'dead of the somme' or 'schaben redoubt' ... if you go to the 1916-1918 link you will be able to read the divisional history by Falls. For a further depiction of the 'failed' Ulster Division attack north of the ancre on 1st July ... you can see an article which I have written and which was kindly included in Tom Morgan's hellfire corner site. It is my intention to update the 'ancre north' article in the next few days. From my point of view, having studied this action for a long time, I repeat that my belief is that the first wave of the 36th south of the ancre benefitted from starting their attack closer to the German lines than many other formations, thus winning the race to the parapet. I sincerely believe that they had high morale and, like many other formations, were full of patriotic fervour, but if any one factor is to be highlighted, I pick 'sweat' ... it was a hot day and I reckon they must have been sweating like proverbials when they raced into the German lines. Sadly the follow up brigades felt the full force of flanking machine guns and artillery when attacks by equally brave men who did not have this 'time/space' advantage were stopped in their tracks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonraker Posted 5 January , 2006 Share Posted 5 January , 2006 Having just read this thread I'm disappointed with myself for not finding it sooner - I'm always up for a little thrust and parry!! Being a total outsider on this topic with no barrows to push, I can only say that the contentious issue appears to fall upon the "some people say" point. Can someone tell us if there was ever anyone who suggested this be the truth or perhaps a perpetuated myth. Either way if someone did originally suggest/imply it then Holts would be correct in making the comment as they don't claim it to be the truth themselves. And to be honest I didn't read to much into the quote anyway. It would probably have been more prudent to leave it out, but like Salesie, it came across to me that they were being praised for their performance and not denigrated. In fact the implication I got was that the 'some' referred to a minority and that their view was almost certainly incorrect. Tim L. Hang on till I get me helmet!! Tim, better late than never. I think your fresh observations sum up things nicely, and I wish I had picked up on the fact that the Holts were reporting what may have been a perception at the time (and if it was a misperception or myth there were countless others born in the heat of battle). Quite how strong the perception may have been is probably impossible to determine today; as we see all too often today in the media, coverage of a single person's or small group's view can exaggerate the strength of their case. (Villager goes to local paper saying he and his neighbour are cross about something; resulting coverage suggests entire village is up in arms; it turns out everyone else couldn't care less.) Moonraker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 5 January , 2006 Share Posted 5 January , 2006 I'm always up for a little thrust and parry!! Nice to have you here. And, like all the rest of us in this thread, you bring a subjective comment on a subjective extract. Of course, none of us know what the authors intended by the extract or, for that matter who "some" might be. They may have been quoting some previous unnamed source. They may have just accidentally stuck it in, having heard a similar comment "down the pub", and thought it would lend some spice to the account. It may well be a total invention and intended as a slur. Only the Holts can tell us. But, as I said in an earlier post, it is interesting that the authors make no mention of any motivation the men of 30th Division had in an entirely determined and successful attack, whilst they ascribe subjective comments to the Ulstermen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernard_Lewis Posted 5 January , 2006 Share Posted 5 January , 2006 Tim - if you're still in the bush hat - watch those swinging corks, mate. They can give you a nasty dig in the eye! Bernard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salesie Posted 5 January , 2006 Share Posted 5 January , 2006 Des My apologies - it would appear a Freuduian slip entered the transcription of my original quote. I have rechecked my 1999 guide and it says "individualism" - I have amended my original post. I suspect even the Holts have sufficient savvy not to have put "nationalism" into this particular context. John Now we have accuracy and an amendment, it would seem that the Holt's were more praiseworthy of the 36th than I originally believed - and perhaps show that they have more savvy than most? Cheers - salesie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desmond7 Posted 5 January , 2006 Author Share Posted 5 January , 2006 Question: Does that explain 'alcoholic bravura'? Answer: No. Please note I moved to clarify the 'nationalism' issue with speed. I have no wish to muddy the waters here. It most certainly does not justify their line about 'alcoholic bravura'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 5 January , 2006 Share Posted 5 January , 2006 Now we have accuracy and an amendment, it would seem that the Holt's were more praiseworthy of the 36th than I originally believed - and perhaps show that they have more savvy than most? Cheers - salesie. Tell you what - you win. I give up. Can't compete at this level of debate. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salesie Posted 5 January , 2006 Share Posted 5 January , 2006 Question: Does that explain 'alcoholic bravura'? Answer: No. Please note I moved to clarify the 'nationalism' issue with speed. I have no wish to muddy the waters here. It most certainly does not justify their line about 'alcoholic bravura'. Just my point of view, Des, just my point of view. It may oppose yours, but, for the reasons given earlier, it is genuinely held and as solid as ever. Cheers - salesie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Simon Bull Posted 5 January , 2006 Share Posted 5 January , 2006 (1) I am confused [happens easily!] What exactly did the Holts say? (2) it is certainly the case that the Holts books are not immune from error. I found what transpired to be an error in an entry relating to a soldier (whose name presently escapes me) recently buried at Prowse Point Cemetery. They had got it wrong about where he was found. One of our Belgian Pals pointed this out to me and said he would be getting in contact with them to correct them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roxy Posted 5 January , 2006 Share Posted 5 January , 2006 I agree with Des' concern with the reputation of 36 Div. Even if only he is offended by the Holts' wording and the implication that 36 Div went 'over the top' drunk (and I suspect that it's not only Des!) then consideration should be given to changing that wording. However, correction (or amendment, as you see fit) is unlikely to be achieved without contacting the publisher. After reading The Western Front - North, I commented on a few typos and date errors and got a nice e-mail in return; not sure whether the corrections have been made yet. Roxy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted 5 January , 2006 Share Posted 5 January , 2006 I agree with Des and Roxy. Anything which may be read by some with little knowledge of the subject and can be construed as perpetuating the myth about Irish soldiers (from either side of the border) being at certain times or permanently drunk should be corrected/amended. There were those who liked a drink and the rum ration was abused but this was throughout the Army including the English, Scottish and Welsh and not forgetting the Dominion contingents either. These were, however, a very small minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbo Posted 5 January , 2006 Share Posted 5 January , 2006 The full title of the book is Major & Mrs Holt's Battlefield Guide to the Somme & the passage in issue is '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 magnificent feat of arms.' It's on p. 77 in the 2003 edition. My previous posting was inaccurate, as I was looking for 'alcoholic bravura' & failed to notice that it was 'individualism' rather than 'nationalism'. The perils of skim reading! Sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 5 January , 2006 Share Posted 5 January , 2006 If the rum issue was general among the attacking divisions before the 1/7/16 attack, one might say that the whole assault was inspired to some extent by, among other things, a degree of alcoholic bravura? Wasn`t that the point of the rum? I feel confident that if the Irish division was more successful than some others, then the reasons will probably be found elsewhere than in the rum issue. Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desmond7 Posted 5 January , 2006 Author Share Posted 5 January , 2006 This will be my final post on the topic. I have looked up a number of books which deal with the Somme. These are NOT books devoted to the Ulster Division and I chose them to illustrate how the divisional attack is dealt with in such publications. They are not travel guides/battlefield guides .. they are historical works by prominent and well-known authors, some of whom, I guess, scoot around this forum from time to time. The books were:- The Somme, Gary Sheffield; The Somme, Peter Hart; Orange, Green and Khaki, Tom Johnstone; Tommy by Richard Holmes (small extract) and Middlebrook's First Day on the Somme (I have already mentioned the great man's quite proper reference to an individual getting drunk). None of these historians mention at any time that the Ulster Division (in Peter's case I have to smile/he knows what I mean) took alcohol in quantities which would have rendered them liable to charge of 'alcoholic bravura'. In fact, they don't mention alcohol at all. Final statement. The Ulster Division did not achieve what they did due to alcoholic bravura and I am equally certain that everyone on this forum knows it too. Thank you all for your time and patience. For those who wish to belittle the men who died on that day, you can add 'they died drunk' on their tombstones .. or on the Thiepval Memorial. And if that offends those who still argue that the Holts have a leg to stand on .. so be it. Des Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mueller Posted 5 January , 2006 Share Posted 5 January , 2006 Did you also inform the publishers of the misidentification of the Canadian 3rd Division Memorial on Vimy Ridge? Robert 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