Mud, Blood and Poppycock - Corrigan

[cahoehler]

Guys

Please see "Facing Armageddon etc" previously in Book reviews

From Corrigan in Mud, Blood and Poppycock and quoted by Roy Huggins in http://www.johndclare.net/wwi3_corrigan_quotes.htm

"Alone amongst the original warring powers, the morale of the British army never cracked, and it was the British army that in 1918 was the only Allied army capable of mounting a massive and sustained offensive. During the ‘Hundred Days’ of 1918 Haig’s army decisively defeated the German army on the Western Front. When criticism of him began in the 1930s, General Pershing, Commander in Chief of the American army on the Western Front and not a man naturally inclined towards the British, said, ‘How can they do this to the man who won the war?’ ".

This book seems to really address most of the myths (in fact almost a real "Myth Busters") - but is it too good to be true?

Thanks

Carl Hoehler

[John_Hartley]

Carl

Extensive comments on the book in this earlier thread:-

Click here

John

[CROONAERT]

- but is it too good to be true?

Speaking as "not exactly the greatest fan of Corrigan" ( a person whom I believe can let personal feeling overide fact at times).... yes!

Dave

[cahoehler]

Extensive comments on the book in this earlier thread . . .

John

John

Thanks for the link - I did the original search on the full name with no results but a search for "POPPYCOCK" was quite rewarding

Carl Hoehler

[RodB]

A more accurate explanation of the hundred days would be : "After 4 years of being ground down by the vastly superior numbers and resources of Russia, Serbia, Italy, France, Belgium, the British Empire and the USA, while all the time inflicting approximately 10% more casualties on their opponents than they sustained, the German army was forced to sacrifice its remaining combat troops in an attempt to win the war before being swamped by millions of fresh Americans - and was hence so reduced in fit men that Haig was finally able to drive it back, but not break through it, despite having failed in every offensive he attempted previously".

Corrigan's view constitutes brainless jingoism, and ignores the fact that Haig had an army of 18 year old conscripts left which barely fell over the line, and was in no position to dictate any peace terms. It was all about numbers, and Haig found himself with a few more at the end despite his best efforts.

This is not intended to disparage the fighting abilities of the men involved, my grandfather was one of them. But I feel they won despite Haig rather than because of him.

[Justin Moretti]

Something Corrigan said in his Loos book gives a perspective on MBP: that he's writing from the soldier's viewpoint as much as the historian's, because he was once in the British army. So if there is a (strong) element of jingoism, perhaps this explains it. (Though I remember Kipling's quote about a million reasons and no excuse!)

Yes, the German Army did sacrifice its best troops - but even the anglophobic account I've just finished (Martin Kitchen's book on the Kaiserschlacht) admits that it probably lost because its commander couldn't keep his focus on what he was trying to do, however well he knew HOW - whereas one might argue that Haig was the reverse, knowing very well what he needed to do, but not being so strong on the how.

What I find really fascinating (and I may be wrong because history is not my main focus in life right now) is that the periods of mobile warfare in WW1 (both at the start and at the end) seem to be horridly more costly in terms of lives lost per period of time than the more famous siege campaigns (Somme, Verdun, Passchendaele). The fact that people were actually getting somewhere at a reasonable rate for a change doesn't alter the raw figures, however much it explains them.

Ultimately MBP is the opposite swing of the pendulum from Clark, Winter and all the other Haig-haters (and in Corrigan's eyes, poppycock spreaders), from which giddy height one may survey, and eventually swing down into, more reasonable valleys of analysis on both sides, coming to rest eventually at a happy medium which better reflects the truth. Maybe.

[Chris_Baker]

For Gawd's sake don't let this become another Haig rant thread. We've had plenty of those lately.

[auchonvillerssomme]

For Gawd's sake don't let this become another Haig rant thread. We've had plenty of those lately.

Give them a chance, they only up to the Haig chapter, they not got to shot at d..... yet!!!

Its a good book regardless of the criticism, but then I'm easily pleased and able to think around the issues.

Mick

[ressmex]

Having found the book a bit to much figures which does not really lend its self to reading it in a oner. It also moves me to question such a reliance on numbers we all now what politicians can do with numbers. I did not find it a good book to read particularly since I had to force myself to read it chapter by chapter over a longish period of time however I did enjoya number of chapters.

TOM

[ChrisC]

"After 4 years of being ground down by the vastly superior numbers and resources of Russia, Serbia, Italy, France, Belgium, the British Empire and the USA, while all the time inflicting approximately 10% more casualties on their opponents than they sustained, the German army was forced to sacrifice its remaining combat troops in an attempt to win the war before being swamped by millions of fresh Americans - and was hence so reduced in fit men that Haig was finally able to drive it back, but not break through it, despite having failed in every offensive he attempted previously".

The combined resources of Russia? Out of the war in 1917 and not much help before that. Italy? To which British troops and artillery had to be diverted on Lloyd George's insistence and against the wishes of Field Marshal Haig. Belgium and Serbia I won't even dignify with a comment. The French army recovering from mutiny and bled white. America with its limitless manpower having to rely on its allies for tanks aircraft and artillery. Please. Poppycock indeed.

Chris C

[AndyHollinger]

If the purpose of History is not to repeat the mistakes ... read the old thread ... all of this has been hashed out ... it's not exactly jingoism ... but it is ... rather one-sided ... the book is good to read but not exactly gospel ... fair-enough?

[gporta]

...an army of 18 year old conscripts left which barely fell over the line...

I think that these teen conscripts were able to achieve more in the last months of 1918 than others in four years of war. Don't disregard them. They are still underrated by most historians and I believe, undeservedly so

Gloria

[Justin Moretti]

For Gawd's sake don't let this become another Haig rant thread. We've had plenty of those lately.

Sorry, that wasn't the intent; merely to indicate who is on which side of the literary divide, and to admit that some on both sides are well far from 'centre'. I probably should have said "anti-Haigists" - as opposed to people like Terraine, who might even be called... *cough* "Haigiographers"?

[andyspiller]

Pals

Just finished this book and quite agree with previous posts that it is not a book that can be read in one sitting. Having said that, I found it well researched and full of detail .

Is it not the case that we should read books from all sides of any argument so that we can develop a balanced opinion?

Rgds

Andy

[Dikke Bertha]

I thought the original question asked if it was true that Pershing said such a thing about Haig but it appears that others thought the question was whether Haig won the war or not.

What exactly is the question?

Confused regards

[AndyHollinger]

Okay, don't read the old thread because we couldn't say what you want to say because you (we) will say it better.

MBP: the war wasn't as bad as the "Useless Slaughter" set say, Haig wasn't as bad as LG said, Britain won the war.

People who disagree: Oh yeah ?! How'bout this .______ (fill in fact-lette)

MBP: "Well if we analyze this statistic over this length of time it says that being an officer at the Somme wasn't as bad as being in _____ (fill in time and place for counterpoint)

It is impossible to discuss this book without arguing because the book is an argument (not that this is bad) ... I suggest, however, in all seriousness that one think through the SPAM song from Python, Monty before discussing Haig further ...

[Alan Lines]

The book is just what it says "poppycock". No wonder people still rant about Haig after reading books like this.

[Archer]

That is an unfair assessment, Alan.

Corrigan has a great deal to say that is both interesting and worth considering. Disagreement is one thing - but dismissing his book as 'Poppycock' tells us absolutely nothing useful about it.

He is clearly a man who does research into his topic, thinks about what the research is telling him, and writes up his conclusions as a soldier and a historian.

It is a well-written, thoughtful book - and he deserves respect - even when he says things we disagree with.

William

[Julian Manchee]

I found it an interesting read; it certainly had a different edge being written by a soldier.

The other day I was discussing the 'mindless slaughter' of the great war with my mother. My great uncle, on seeing the casualties arrive from France immediately volunteered to fight. What would happen today? Masses of volunteers..............? Yes, war is evil, but part of our nature.

The saddest thing about WW1 was the culture that followed; peace at all costs. Thank God for the channel.

I think there was a feelling in the British High command at the time that they should push on into Germany. Instead armistice and the 'betrayal' of the German army by the Jews etc....

Who knows, a BAOR in 1919, no Hitler...maybe and an all out war with the soviets....Just like gulf war one; maybe we should have kept going.