The Battle of Loos

[ressmex]

I have just finished reading the book by Philip Warner ( The Battle of Loos ) I found it to be excelent reading, starting with a short account about the initial stages of the battle then giving a two page extract from FM French's diary, then onto individual accounts by division involved in the battle, from letters written at the time, personal accounts sent to the author. It all makes excellent reading. originally published in 1976 while a good number of old boy's were still with us. Some stories were patriotic some sad and some still stuned by the masive losses witnessed by them. I would say it was a must for any Great War book shelf.

TOM

[andigger]

Tom - I just read the book too, and whereas it was good I think there are other styles out there which are better. For example I didn't think he offered anything new on the battle (although Loos is written about very infrequently). Also his personal accounts include too much 'raw data', by that I mean that he should have shorten the letters he received from the veterans to include the relevant information to the battle. I though there was too much extraneous commentary on 'modern' attitudes durning the 50s about the war. Although others do not like her style I think Lyn MacDonald offers a good example of how to tell a story through personal accounts.

On the whole I would agree that it is a good book, but we are still in need of a great book on the 1915 battles, in my opinion.

Andy

[ressmex]

Hello Andy

I agree with all you have said but I'm a sucker for personal accounts, If an old boy took the trouble to write down his fading memories then I want to read that as he wrote it I feel same about letters written at the time of the battle. However it is the first book I have read on the subject and will probably go out and look for Lyn McDonalds work, by the way my favorite author is Cornelius Ryan and just love that type of style and presentation of a story.

TOM

[Tommy Atkins]

I'm halfway through Lyn Macdonald's 1915: The Death Of Innocence, and I can assure you it's well worth checking out. I've withstood the first gas attack with the Princess Patricias of Canada, seen the horrors of Aubers Ridge with the Seaforths and The Gurkahs and have just got to the train disaster of Gretna which I knew nothing about. Great book about great people.

[barrieduncan]

I'v always found Lyn Macdonalds books good reading. Sometimes it can be a bit of a slog working through a book that goes into every little details of a battle, it can be quite refreshing to pick up a book like 1915: The Death of Innocence and read it from cover to cover like a novel. The personal stories really bring the books to life, one minute you can be crying your eyes out, the next your laughing your socks off.

[Steven Broomfield]

I have to disagree on Warner's book. I bought it for £3, many years ago, and when I think of all the other things I could have spent three quid on, I get quite vexed.

I am not an expert on Loos, by any means, but the simple mistakes in the first dozen pages were enough to put me off:

Here are a few, at random:

P7. "Rawlinson's Corps contained 2 disivions of the new Kitchener Army: 15th (Scottish) and 47th (London)." The 47th was TF.

P12. Talking about the 15th Division "An insight into the experience and training of this admirable unit are given in Ian hay's 'The First Hundred Thousand'" Hay was in the 9th, the 15th were in the Second 100,000.

P13. Talks on Pipe-Major Robert MacKenzie of the KOSB winning the VC at Loos, aged 60. Really?

Now, I have no objection to the personal accounts, but if Mr warner makes simple, shoddy, mistakes in such a cavalier fashion, how much can i rely on the rest of his text?

[n cherry]

Whilst I feel that what makes a book good/excellent/poor is very much down to personal taste- I would like to comment on the rating of the Warner Loos book.

I have as some people know a deep interest in Loos, my Grandfather was there as a chemical corporal and do possess a paperback copy of the said book. I feel it is a good piece of oral but history but still a confusing and disappointing book with many accounts not even relating to the Loos period.

Some of my observations are as follows:

Page 13. I have been unable to find any trace of a Piper McKenzie being awarded a Victoria Cross.

Pages 21 and 142. Warner comments on page 21 that the 12th Division didn't arrive in the Loos sector till 29th September, yet he is happy to include a comment on page 142 from a member of this unit-Mr E Lane that he 'went over the top on the 25th September'....on this date the division was in Bailleul in the Ypres sector, leaving for Loos on the 28th.......

In the photograph section why include a postcard from Mr F Heningham which shows soldiers in steel helmets so clearly isn't a 'Loos period' photograph.....

I could go on but I think people might get a flavour of the level of accuracy in the book from these three comments.....

[PhilB]

I think we can see from the above comments that, inaccuracies apart, one can only judge a book in relation to its target audience. A reader new to the battle wants a comparitvely superficial account giving the general outline with a few juicy bits and personal accounts. A serious student of the battle wants a detailed nuts and bolts account suitable for reference. What suits one won`t suit the other. Phil B

[Roxy]

I've got to concur with Phil here. Philip Warner's book was the first about Loos that I read (there aren't that many). I think that it encouraged me to read others. including the excellent 'Most Unfavourable Ground'

Roxy

[Andrew Hesketh]

when I think of all the other things I could have spent three quid on, I get quite vexed.

Would you call it cr*p Steven?

I wasn't impressed either. 'Most Unfavourable Ground' is in a different league.

[Steven Broomfield]

I bought it about 25 years ago, when £3 could buy all sorts of things - for example, a visit to the Abbey Stadium to watch 2nd Division Cambridge United play 2nd Division Chelsea. Youngsters - I am not making that up

Seriously, though, even then, when I were a mere sprig of a lad, I could see it wasn't actually really accurate.

Maybe not cr*p, Andrew - after all, I am always extremely careful in my recorded comments - but certainly less than good!

[ressmex]

Anyway I found the book to be both entertaining and educational, Yes I agree with most of the comments made as nearly everyone has said there is very little out there on this battle. thanks one and all for your opinions.

TOM

[AB64]

I liked a lot of the individual veteran memories, but I thought it was a real missed opportunity, many of the accounts seemed to be the initial replies from veterans that the author didnt seem to have chased up to when it seemed they would have had much more to say.

Alistair

[marina]

I thought the book woth reading just for the Account of Captain Wyllie, Royal Scots Fusiliers. It's a marvellous piece, full of thrills and spills and the emergence of a remarkable personality.

Marina

[Muerrisch]

Yurrghhhh !!!!!!!!!!

Just as well I bought it remaindered!

An author who cannot distinguish between infantry regiment and infantry battalion is not worth proceeding with. I jumped to the eyewitness accounts and they are indeed worthwhile.

But Yurrghhhh !!!!!!!!!!

[withcall]

"we are still in need of a great book on the 1915 battles", says a contributor. Why is Alan Clark's 'The Donkeys' discredited? Is it because it is factually inaccurate, or because his views are profoundly unfashionable amongst many WW1 buffs? It can't be discounted on literary grounds, as his style and use of language leaves most contemporary authors, with the exception of Richard Holmes, dead and buried. I have no particular axe to grind either way, but I am bemused as to why colleagues in the WW1 fraternity reach for the garlic and the exorcist's bell whenever Clark's name is mentioned. I first read it, almost at a sitting, many years ago, but I must confess I didn't have a stack of regimental histories on hand to check its accuracy. Opinions, please...?

[MartinWills]

Clarke is discredited essentially because it is far from a factual and well researched volume.

Much of it was based, as I understand it, upon the opinions of Basil Liddell-Hart and it was not backed up with thorough research. It is right to say that it is dated and note that opinions and views have changed, but we should remember that these changes have been driven by more scholarly research, not least as more archive material and public records have been opened up to public access.

We have yet to see a thorough account of the campaigns of 1915 (Gallipoli excepted) which positions them in the progress of the war as a whole. It is good to see accounts of 1915 battles appearing in one form or another such as Niall Cherry's fine volume on Loos and the Battleground Europe volumes. These worthy tomes, however, lack the overall perspective of the war in 1915 on the Western Front.

On a final note it did not help in Alan Clark's case that in Ensor's useful if erractic WW1 bibliography, Ensor citesClarks volume under "animals".

[squirrel]

For a small book on Loos which sticks to the point and describes things in detail have a look at, The Battles of Aubers Ridge Festubert and Loos in relation to the Field Service Regulations by Lt Col Kearsey.

Originally published in 1929 and available as a reprint from N & M Press.

[Charles Fair]

On a final note it did not help in Alan Clark's case that in Ensor's useful if erractic WW1 bibliography, Ensor cites Clarks volume under "animals".

.... which some might say is poetic justice.

[Justin Moretti]

"we are still in need of a great book on the 1915 battles", says a contributor. Why is Alan Clark's 'The Donkeys' discredited? Is it because it is factually inaccurate, or because his views are profoundly unfashionable amongst many WW1 buffs? It can't be discounted on literary grounds, as his style and use of language leaves most contemporary authors, with the exception of Richard Holmes, dead and buried. I have no particular axe to grind either way, but I am bemused as to why colleagues in the WW1 fraternity reach for the garlic and the exorcist's bell whenever Clark's name is mentioned. I first read it, almost at a sitting, many years ago, but I must confess I didn't have a stack of regimental histories on hand to check its accuracy. Opinions, please...?

I re-read this book recently with the cross and garlic at hand, and I didn't have to reach for them too much. In fact, once it was clear that Basil Liddell-Hart had been involved, every snide remark and subjective condemnation about the generals suddenly fell into place for me.

By and large, I think it chronicles the events (and the mistakes) very well. Where it loses out is by sinking, as I have stated, into personal barbs. The nature of Haig's acceptance into the staff college by nomination is one of these - Liddell-Hart knew (MUST have known) very well that a significant proportion of the candidates got in that way, and for it not to have appeared in the book means that either Clark didn't know and Liddell-Hart failed to tell him, or one or both DID know and deliberately left that bit of context out in order to make Haig look bad.

On the other hand, what Clark says about Sir John French seems to be backed up quite ably by other authorities (possessed noble purpose, beloved by his troops, but inconsistent in character and unsuitable for the sort of war he was being asked to fight), and similarly to many others, he is given no mercy at all when it comes to his treatment of Smith-Dorrien.

At the end of the day, French's dismissal will always be controversial - but how else can it possibly look, when the man with the greatest ability (and hence the obligation) to act on the realization that the C in C is out of his depth, is the one most likely to replace him if he is removed?

[withcall]

Fair points about the Clarke book. The best/worst conspiracy theory about Loos was one I heard once at an illustrated talk. The speaker reckoned that Haig threw in the 21st and 24th Divisions on the second day, knowing that they would be cut to pieces, but realising that French, not he, would take the blame. I'm no great fan of Haig, but that was one piece of 'blame-game' too far

[n cherry]

Comment: The speaker reckoned that Haig threw in the 21st and 24th Divisions on the second day, knowing that they would be cut to pieces, but realising that French, not he, would take the blame

Perhaps but bear in imnd to my view French made it dififclut for himself by stating in his psot Loos despatch that the 21st and 24th Divisions were released to Haig at 0930 on the 25th when it was a few hours later.

In spite of orders etc confirming this French refused to alter his position and was just another nail in his coffin but a SIW......